RE: How to make easy moneygloworm
Further, and more importantly, the proposed increase in fees due to multiple claims in a single patent application were removed before the law was passed.
they backed off on the size of the initial proposed increase for multiple claims, but the revised proposal is still almost 2.5 times greater than what the fees were before.
https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/strat21/feeproposalcomparison.htm
and i suspect, if these changes don't meaningfully help resolve the current crisis in patent applications backlog, (particularly biotech apps) they will raise the claims fees even higher, because ultimately it is the number of claims (and the related searches required for each claim) that determine the time of processing a patent application and its total cost.
from the article you referenced.
"Another fee hike, which is expected to raise the office's annual revenue to $1.5 billion, will find its way into the Bush 2004 budget plan, scheduled for release February 4, but this year's fee proposal does not treat multiple claims as per se abuse of the patent system.
"Sophisticated inventions take a considerable number of claims. That includes most of what comes out of the life sciences," explained Thomas M. Saunders, a Boston patent attorney with expertise in technology patents, including biotech.
rob2u
i think you should concern yourself more with considering the validity of the points in my posts than my reasons for investing and the timing thereof.
you can check back through my posting history here yourself, but to satisfy your curiousity i have provided a summary of my investment experience with onc for you below. i don't think your observation that i have nothing good to say about ONC is correct, though perhaps the good things may get lost among the many criticisms i have.
i invested originally in syb around the time when Pk (ecoli drug used in walkerton) & CD (diahrea) had both obtained
fast track approval from the FDA and were entering phase III trials - despite that their onc investment was a significant factor in my decision, since i felt that investment lessened the risk while also offering opportunity to participate in potentially significant gains based on Dr. Lee's serendipitous discovery that reovirus had cancer cell killing properties.
in case some new people here aren't aware - Brad Thompson was president & ceo of synsorb and Doug Ball CFO at syb before they took over the same positions in oncolytics.
synsorb seemed to be progressing, at least according to their news releases (see the following example)
https://www.aegis.com/news/bw/2000/BW000505.html
then in Dec. 2000 they suddenly without warning abandoned the Pk trials purportedly to conserve limited resources and concentrate on Cd, which they referred to as the "more attractive" drug, claiming that phase III CD trials were gaining momentum with increasing enrolment.
a year later, syb also dropped development of CD including phase III trials, citing enrolment problems. the announcement was completely contrary to the comments made by synsorb a year earlier and came as a bombsehll out of the blue.
since there was little to no opportunity to exit syb at a reasonable price after the bombshell announcement, i stuck with it, primarily because i continued to be intrigued with the potential of Dr. Lee's discovery, and subsequently converted my syb holdings to onc, though mindful that at least two key guys of onc's management had come from syb, namely thompson & ball.
(btw, as a sidenote, syb eventually adopted a plan of distribution for its onc shares that i among others, had called for on the syb board, which was the best solution for all shareholders - did they actually listen to me & others and change their minds? - i don't know, but i have a feeling that our voices were heard and in the end, syb did the right thing for all syb shareholders.
i think most, if not all, who experienced the syb debacle, where there were no prior warnings of problems with either phase III trial (eg. effectiveness, enrolments, etc.), is all too familiar with the bunker mentality approach and naturally very wary of the corporate legacy and heritage of Thompson & Ball.