We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey 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.
Hi Teamhanz, could you forward that to me too
bhanu12582 AT yahoo . com
iwannanomore201 @ gmail . com
Your*
whats our email add and decide for your self mate..
It really would be useful if someone makes public the allegations and attachments. If they have been sent to both the BOD and Nomad surely a rebuttal is required?
AIM does not like unrebutted allegations in my personal experience?
Team, no I haven't, is it particularly bad?
I have tried to avoid joining the WhatsApp/group e-mail thing. I didn't want to get sucked in that far.
have you read the email chain noise?
Hm, whatevs
If 201 is any good, frankly it will do us no favours if George goes off in a huff. Drug development is not something you can just walk into overnight, even at the Dr/PhD level.
He probably just means the knowledge in his head, but it's not like you could sell that on eBay.
Hi Noise.
It's ownership of intellectual property and not patents... That's what today's discussion has been around...
Why are you all getting into a flap about patents today?
I have a modest understanding of patents (by no means an expert). There will be a record of 'ownership/Applicant' and a record of 'inventors'. From recollection there are various 'inventors' listed on Valirx patents (including the original 2x Italian academics who designed the peptide, CRUK who licensed it, and Valirx directors who bought the commercial rights to the compound). For example, if someone worked for Merck and developed a drug, you'd be named as an inventor, but by no means would you 'own' the patent.
I forget the specifics of how the CRUK deal was structured, but I assume they have a milestone payment agreement and royalties etc.
Understood and accepted by.
Best wishes. Fred
Thinking about this more holistically. The scientific advisory board including Professor Hilary Calvert would not associate their names with ValiRX unless this was all above board. In research, your name is everything.
Fredd, unfortunately that is all that it is, merely an opinion based on 5 minutes of research.
I am not experienced in Patents, or IP ownership, just taken a logical viewpoint on the evidence reviewed.
Thank you for your comments, but it should be noted that my opinions are far from being an authoritative review/response.
Thanks hh....your opinion appreciated.
In this particular case the Patent was applied for by Cancer Research Technology Limited, whose parent company is CRUK.
The relationship to VAL would exist in what ever agreement is currently in place between CRUK and VAL regarding the development and commercialisation of the compound in question.
So, although George is identified as one of the numerous co-inventors the patent is in the name of a subsidiary company to CRUK, so ultimately any threat proven in the WhatsApp correspondence that is being bandied about on here is a hollow threat, as George doesn’t own the IP.
At least, that’s how it reads in my humble opinion.
Surely it is easy to confirm who owns the IP.
Wouldn’t it just take a check on which entity’s name is on the Patent for each compound.
And I would assume that Patent information is in the Public Domain.
Just a thought.
Agree
Yes please. Can this be copied to the board....
we all WANT COPY of alleged; email, screenshot, whatsapp message etc.. out on this board