Okay, here is one for you to think about, as I am totally naive about this but really enjoy the discussions . NPR's Radiolab had a podcast about CRISPR, and in a nutshell they said that they will be able to cut out a defective gene (such as the gene that causes hemophilia) with a virus. But then they need to deliver a good gene to replace the defective gene and then cure the disease.
My question is, would DPC be able to transport good genes to where they need to be placed? According to the podcast, the good gene only needs to be in the vicinity of where the bad gene is taken out. If interested this podcast is on the June 6th, 2015 Radiolab podcast sight.
Not that I know all that much about this, but Reuters has an article about the effects that the new TPP trade pact will have on Pharma. And it just looks to me that it will bring even more caution on buyouts and partnerships because of the patent exclusivity rights on drugs which will go down to 8 yrs if not less, and the pricing of drugs could possibly be capped.
The issue of protections for new biologic medicines like Genentech's Avastin cancer therapy has pitted the United States against Australia and five other countries.
The United States has pushed for longer monopoly protections for pharmaceutical companies to encourage innovation. Australia has countered that such measures would strain national healthcare budgets and keep life-saving medicines from patients who cannot afford them.
The United States provides 12 years of exclusivity for biologic drugs. Australia has insisted on five years of protection to control healthcare costs.
A two-track compromise hammered out by Australia and the United States would set a minimum threshold of five years during which drug makers would have exclusive rights to clinical data behind new drugs while adding an additional protection of several more years as applications for competing drugs are reviewed, people involved said.
Under a second track, pharmaceutical companies would have eight years of exclusive rights to a new product outright in some countries, they said.
It was still unclear how that set of standards would influence pricing for future drugs."
Thank you hparch, I always looked forward to dmorfey's comments and I knew full well why he wanted this type of research to keep going, as my father died of pancreatic cancer. Companies like arwr give me hope that his investment (and mine) will help future and less dibilatating cures of many of these diseases.
I would think it is because they know they can get to 100+ lumens and clarity in full daylight settings, and need this for backup protection for eyes and gov. regs. I don't think it's anyones surprise that MVIS would be working on this, not only for their own selves but because their customers want to get to full daylight settings as much and as quickly as MVIS does. If this patent gets them to that then yes, this will be TELLING