Don't get it. I thought the play would be over after RJR and CIGX announced they may go into arbitration.. but that was $1 ago. CIGX continued to move up after that news on Jan 24.
Clue me in....
No, that was the first and he just started. "Only in Texas". Anatabine pure enough for drug use (other than from Star) is quite expensive, according to research others did several months ago.
There is another post that details some of the history of the "doctor" behind Anatabine4. Apparently he is a shady opportunist, not a scientist. Commercial anatabine citrate is cheap but I am told it is also very toxic. If that is what they are using in the "Anatabine4" product, it will probably not be available long.
Slattery - "If for arguments sake Pfizer decided to make anatabine and found a new process for manufacturing anatabine (unlikely but possible) then we would have Pfizer anatabine."
Agreed, BUT Star has also filed for every potential medical use they could think of. Unless Pfizer is going into the supplement business, that doesn't make sense for them. A company like Pfizer is more likely to put their efforts into incorporating anatabine into their current and future drug formulations and then patenting that. In that circumstance they would be better off seeking some sort of licensing from Star that limits potential competitors from entering the market that they want to target. Also, in that circumstance they would be vested in Star having a valid patent.
Star would be wise to identify these types of major players and develop partnerships with each covering specific areas of interest. This would make it less likely, that at some point in the future, these "major players" would be challenging Star's Patent. The enticement could be a low up-front payment and more significant back end revenue once the "new" drug is approved.
Agreed you cannot patent anatabine itself. Star have patented the method of isolating / manufacturing anatabine. So anatabine being made by star is STAR Anatabine. If for arguments sake Pfizer decided to make anatabine and found a new process for manufacturing anatabine (unlikely but possible) then we would have Pfizer anatabine.
For me the way forward for star is obvious. Complete phase II and phase III studies, get FDA approval. FDA approval sells drugs. Physicians recommend and the public want FDA approved drugs.
Right now star are a long way ahead in a long race. For anyone else entering the race they will be running with both legs bound together due to stars patents and studies done to date.
In case yo uhaven't seen who is (now) in charge of all this yet, you might like
They need to give most of the newly authorized shares to him. I suspect they be giving quite a few. Nice fellow. Thanks Dr. Wright!!
OK. here's the deal. You can't patent natural ingredients - you can only patent man-made compounds.
However, you can patent application of natural ingredients for "unobvious" process.
Anatabloc is a market name that can be registered by a company. Its main ingredient may be anatabine. The question is where CIGX holds patents on this particular application of anatabine - to stop inflammation. If not, then yes, anyone can use anatabine to create their own product - call it watashibloc even (a pun on anata :-). I hope that makes sense.
Actually, I've been around for a long time. I was here during the initial rise of CIGX from $2 to $5 (just search for me). I was here when RJR vs CIGX appeal was defeated and CIGX tanked to $2. After that, I haven't followed up with CIGX until the last few days.
I remember the day of RJR vs CIGX appeal failed, the initial reaction thought CIGX won and the stock shot up, only it turned out the decision was miread and CIGX tanked.