RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Patents have valueYou have it completely backwards. Sue the one with lots of cash to settle, then use that settlement to scare all the small players to license the tech from Canopy. This is going to fail. Good thing Canopy only paid $1.00 for the patent.
DonRudy wrote: Let the process play out before we talk in absolutes if worthless. @ifsca if it was simply Co2 extraction why wouldn't canopy go after a smaller fish who uses Co2 extraction other than GW pharma who is a large company with deep pockets to fight in court. Setting a precedence with a smaller extraction company would be the strategic play. There for I believe it is not just The method of Co2 extraction that's being argued. Perhaps steps along the way?