Member Info for Ghia

Mani - There are two points I was making and neither disagree with your point.

Under patent law does their statement 1 render statement 2 null and void. Had there not been a pandemic on statement 1 would have never been made and if it had would have had ramifications under my basic understanding of patent law. This is the bit that may have ramifications across the industry.

Point 2 what period are they seeking damages for I don’t think that is clear yet.

Anyway the original post was just here is something going on in the industry why oh why it needed to be discussed with such ferocity beats me.

It will settle out of court most likely the lawyers get richer.

Mani - So the point you are making is that they are only going after revenue and damages for sales after March 2022?

Is that what you are arguing I’m sorry but as is often the case your points are not very clear.

If that is the point you are making then we are arguing about completely different things.

Mani - I didn’t say they where retrospectively changing their position I said they are retrospectively enforcing them.

Different things.

There is not enough information in the public domain to say if they are going after revenue pre or post March.

If they are attempting to go after revenue pre March so during the pandemic they will be attempting to claim damages for a period before they issued the second statement.

Retrospectively enforcing their patent claim.

It will be interesting to see how their first and second statements are viewed in the court of law.

This could be one of those moments that redefines aspects of patent law.

Mani - You want an argument on this one too?

October 2020, We will not enforce patents during pandemic
March 2022, We now think the pandemic is over and have changed our stance.

They are retrospectively enforcing, I’m not a patent attorney but was their original statement watertight that’s the interesting bit.

Delay is not normally viewed favourably in patent law. But there is the added complication of the pandemic.

Fruits - Just a side story in the industry will be interesting from the stand point that whatever the outcome, it may have a fundamental impact on how patents can be enforced during a pandemic.

Moderna decided not to enforce patents during the pandemic (right thing to do from a moral point of view) now trying to retrospectively enforce them how will that be viewed by the courts?

Should be interesting to see the fallout from this .

Brand, Fruits - I agree with both of your posts.

Thank you Tommy finally some context which was all that is being asked.

Sharedealer - What makes you think an in-house resource would be better than a contract resource. You could argue if you really wanted to get the messaging right you stump up the money and get a team of writers with real pedigree to work on a contract basis.

Vs roll the dice on receiving applicants with calibre in a timely fashion.

In-house resource has both pro’s and cons it certainly suggests they have a long term need but doesn’t suggest short term urgency.

Mania - A meltdown? Hardly just pointing out the issues in your posts.

You have some great quotes in your back catalogue by the way.

Which I’ll save up for September which will be fun.

Tommy - The point is nothing has been shared not even a transcript or wording.

Just the statement the job is a new role.

What does that actually mean.

New role that has never been performed by someone internal at SNG?

New role that has never been fulfilled by an external to SNG?

Something we have never had need of before?

Does the email offer any clarification on this!

If it doesn’t everything is just conjecture.

Without any reference to the wording of the email I struggle to see why this warrants the flood of speculation afterwards.

Brand - Presumably SNG will have to supply training material to any PT trial they participate in?

Mani - Stop diverting is Tommys post a leading post on commercialisation. Yes or No simple question.

“Thoughts on why we need a Senior Medical writer now?”

Would stimulate the same discussion adding the commercialisation piece is implying an answer.

Mani - I quote Tommy directly

“Thoughts on why we need a Senior Medical writer now when we have no commercialisation for 12 months?”

Clearly a leading statement on commercialisation.

Watch the tag team in action with their rehearsed script one after the other.

Todays theme senior tech author hired to apply for commercialisation in less than 12months.

I wonder how many of their shares are bought on t20 pump pump pump to get traction intra month then settle at the end of the month rinse repeat.

First it was promising activ data in June, then July then august.

Then strive in august now September

Then JV asthma before Strive

Now commercialisation in less than 12months

Mani thought LC data was days away in June also.

I struggle to keep up.

Sharedealer - I accepted orgs post because he forwarded me originals.

It would be nice to see originals of the con comms. I’ll reach out for self verification instead of no one is forthcoming.

It was some stretch to suggest commercialisation sooner than 12months in direct conflict with the message put out by the board.

Is someone actually going to post the communication?

Does it specifically mention if this new role replaced outsourced capacity?

Perhaps they plan to take 12months to author their work? (This is a joke) but Activ are approaching those timescales for data release.

Should have thought of mania sooner that will stick :)

Mania response clearly implied no one in their right mind would want to run a trial for monkeypox.

At least that’s what I took from their post.

Their statement was wrong but I’m sure they will now say that was not the intent of their post.

I’m still not sure I understand the objection to “the team behind recovery are switching”

It makes no reference to the recovery trial being switched for another trial.

Which is what Mani et al are suggesting the post means.

The team behind recovery have started a new trial ergo their focus even momentarily has been switched to set up that trial.

There is nothing factually incorrect with what I stated and in no way did I suggest it was their main focus.

At least that was not my intention.