Thanks for agreeing to substantiate the following statements:
“What is interesting is the Ryzard Koles exon-skipping patents [he was a co-discoverer of exon-skipping] precedes the Dutch scientist who used Koles paper to start her own program. The EU, in a hometown ruling gave patent rights to all exons to prosensa but then it was downsized to only exon 51 and 45? Hope this helps.”
“RU, Wrong as usual. it use to be "first to file" but at the time of the patent[s] filing it was the earliest documentation of said tech.”
Honestly, I didn’t think it would take this long.
This is one of those moments that tests a person’s character.
As you can see by the quotes I provided, if you weren’t such a weasel, our disagreement concerns how patents were granted by the EU. You have said they used a first to invent system and later changed to first to file. If this had happened there would be a record. I asked you to provide evidence of this change and I thought you agreed.
In Europe they, generally, have always used the first to file system. That is the main difference between them and our old system.
I don’t intend to waste a lot of time on this.
You were wrong, you were challenged, you stood up to the challenge, and now your pussyfooting.