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.

Non-Tech : Kirk's Market Thoughts -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jpdunwell who wrote (12076)	10/4/2021 2:55:08 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 26766

Maybe. The issue of prior art is tricky, especially when comes to drugs. In general, if you can prove that an old drug can have new uses, you can get a patent for that new use and market it under a new name. Often times the new drug will have some minor changes such as a different dose or inclusion of minor other ingredients (even if it is time released) that make the patent work better. Once there is an approved version of the pill, doctors would risk getting sued if they prescribe that drug in a different form even if they know it will work. And rivals will also have a hard time cloning it. But IP is always tricky. I am more inclined to think that it has not been patented for reasons that this board may not like to hear. There is enough funding and stock appreciation to be had that any number of companies would jump at the chance to get the patent.