Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : Zonagen (zona) - good buy? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dr. Voodoo who wrote (1875)	1/21/1998 1:16:00 AM
From: Cosmo Daisey	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7041

Dr. V. >>>>>I'm a little unclear on the meaning of fraudulent in this context. Suppose I try to patent something that has already been invented, and I don't do such a good job of looking to see if someone has invented it before me. Does this mean I'm in legal trouble, or does it just mean that my patent will either be rejected or that I will likely lose litigation further down the road? >>>> All those things. Patent applications must include a search of existing patents for previous or similiar discoveries or points of invention. Those patents must be disclosed and research provided to show why yours is different. This is what a patent attorney does mostly is search for previous patents that may infringe. Patent law is a special field and you need be licensed to practice patent law. If you slip something by you get sued by the patent holder. These suits are quite common and usually result from sloppy work by the patent attorney. Actually you don't need a patent for protection if you can prove discovery before the patent is issued to someone else. Polaroid and IBM are famous for propritary work that is kept secret instead of patented. If its secret no one can infringe unless they discover the same thing. Once the patent is on public file anyone can look at it and knock it off, yes they get sued. The legal system is in a shambles in the USA and the knock offs get rewarded while the owner fights in court for years for his interests. Famous case was the delay windshield wiper invented by a private individual and stolen by Ford and Mazda who had to pay millions years after they started selling it. The owner offered the patent rights to Ford for a fee but they stole it instead. They probably paid less in settlement than royalties would have been. Even computer chips can be disected by reverse engineering. The patent doesn't stop anyone from copying your work, it merely gives you legal recourse. CD

To: Dr. Voodoo who wrote (1875)	1/22/1998 6:02:00 PM
From: poodle	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7041

continued from: Message 3216517 "Phentolamine, which has been shown to have the potencial to induce erection when injected intracavernosally, ..." Please look at that: REFERENCE 1. (cited by Asensio) J Urol 1988 Dec;140(6):1415-1416 Erectile responses to intracavernous papaverine and phentolamine: comparison of single and combined delivery. Stief CG, Wetterauer U In a prospective study of 15 consecutive impotent patients we evaluated the erectile responses to intracavernous injections of standardized doses of papaverine and phentolamine alone and incombination. Of the 15 patients 13 achieved a full erection with the drug combination, whereas only 6 achieved a full erection with papaverine and 1 with phentolamine. Our results suggest an effective alternative to the use of papaverine alone, whose long-term sequelae have been shown to be deleterious. REFERENCE 2 Br J Urol 1989 Jan;63(1):95-97 Effect of phentolamine on venous return in human erection. Wespes E, Rondeux C, Schulman CC A group of 25 patients underwent Doppler penile blood examination and cavernometry before and after 5 mg of phentolamine injected intracavernously. The organic or psychogenic nature of impotence was determined by psychological testing, the intracavernous injection of papaverine, hormonal evaluation, neurological examination, Doppler penile blood flow measurement and cavernometry for vascular investigations. The intracavernous injection of phentolamine had no effect on the venous return and it provoked penile arterial dilatation. The erectile angle, which was also measured, was less evident than after the injection of papaverine. The results confirmed the fact that an increase in arterial inflow alone is not sufficient to induce a rigid erection in man. Correct phrase in the patemt should be: "Phentolamine, which has been shown to have NO (or INSUFFICIENT) potencial to induce erection when injected intracavernosally, ..." Q1. Do you think that 40 mg tablet may provide higher phentolamine concentration in specific area than 5 mg intracavernous injection? Q2. Could someone question the integrity of authors based on this phrase only? Q3. What kind of information patients really got before they signed?