Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Those clauses are for the supplier, not the test developer. Given the supplier is using govt machines and standard components, there’s not much ip for them to be concerned about
So if that’s as restrictive as it reads, where does the income from the licensing of the IP came from ?
Is it all up front from the authority rather on price per unit?
Non exclusive ????
We might not want govt having access to our IP via this contract. Look at this for a cheeky clause!
11.6 Each Party keeps ownership of its own Existing IPR. The Supplier gives the Authority a nonexclusive, perpetual, royalty-free, irrevocable, transferable worldwide licence to use, change and sub-license the Supplier’s Existing IPR to enable it to both:
11.6.1 receive and use the Goods and
11.6.2 make use of the goods and deliverables provided by a Replacement Supplier
11.7 Any New IPR created under the Contract ( including any New IPR created by Mologic) is owned by the Authority. The Authority gives the Supplier a licence to use any Existing IPR and New IPR for the purpose of fulfilling its obligations during the Contract Period.
So the ‘test developer’ with the magic IP remains a mystery....
In other news ODious have made sure to p’ss on the bonfire by tweeting that nowt’s changed #ClassicColin
PL, I think you were right about it being a mistake that Mologics name was not redacted in 3.1.10. I also think the redacted words in 3.1.10 & 3.1.11 are Mologic, Mologic and Mologic. You have to read that contract understanding that all those paragraphs are instructions specifically to GAD. I think those two paragraphs are just ensuring Mologic are subject to the same conditions as GAD.
I think paragraph 3.7 is testament to that:
3.7 The Supplier shall by the Long Stop Date and subject to the Supplier and Mologic having
entered into the contracts referred to in clauses 2.3, 3.1.9, 3.1.10, and 3.1.11 where
required by the Authority...
Look at how rubbish the performance data is... :-)
Thanks guys, I should hang my head in shame for not seeing that before as I am an ODX shareholder!
https://www.finddx.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Mologic_Ag-Public-Report_v1-20210423.pdf
Sample type, antigen test Nasal (AN) (n=645) or NMT (n=20)
"VISITECT® COVID-19 Antigen is a qualitative lateral flow immunoassay for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein (antigen) in respiratory specimens (throat and nasal swab, or nasal only)."
AUaddicted- I could not see on the Omega website how far up you have to put the swab. Do you have a link for this FIND assessment that says visitect antigen test is anterior nasal?
Why would they when it's AN as seen in the FIND assessment?
The throat part was fine to me but sticking it up your nose further than your finger can go is really really uncomfortable.
I wish we had an LFT that you didn't have to shove up further than anterior nasal passage. I did ask ODX on twitter if their visitect antigen test was anterior nasal or nasopharyngeal but got no reply.
My logic being
Once all the Innova tests are gone….they are gone.
By ordering them and keeping demand high you convince .Gov to order higher numbers of th British test.
It's worse than that. The chap that developed it is from Wuhan !
Using the Chinese test is so ironic for multiple reasons, the obvious being where did the virus start? Now we have to pay China for some shoddy test!! Couldn't make this up. Buy British. Pull you're finger out Avacta and give us some news on you're excellent work.
I don't want the Chinese ones, i want the Avacta ones
We as a family are now in the habit of testing twice a week.
Wife initially hated it until Innova / NHS branding changed their instructions and removed the throat tickle.
Daughter is a primary school teacher so does her tests at work.
Looks like surge testing is going to be the control method as society moves back to new normal v2 or is it v3.
I think we all need to get into the habit of testing.
The ordering process starts here - they are free and remember world demand will at some point outstrip supply, so make sure you have enough tests to stay safe.
https://test-for-coronavirus.service.gov.uk/order-lateral-flow-kits/condition
When they are gone they are gone!