Levels of Covid-19 are highest in most highly vaccinated countries

a reply to: Phoenix

I know what a priority date and a filing date is. It's quite clearly a 2020 patent. It even has 2020 on the patent number, which is a bit of a giveaway.

a reply to: Phoenix

You just don't understand the patent process. If I develop technology say for example a way to encode RNA. Then I seek a patent using that process to develop something I can use the original patent date as they are now linked.

This doesn't change the filing date it just makes it so another person cant use my patent to create say a vaccine and not infringe on my patent for the vaccine. So any patent that uses the earlier process will automatically fall under the new patent.

There are ways around this but the bottom line is the date is to make sure a competitor doesnt develop a vaccine similar to mine.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Phoenix

I know what a priority date and a filing date is. It's quite clearly a 2020 patent. It even has 2020 on the patent number, which is a bit of a giveaway.

Attempting to use an approval date as starting point of prior knowledge is foisting another lie.

Still does not change the 2015 filing date which aptly demonstrated prior knowledge NIH by its own link to definition of priority date clearly says FILING date.

No amount of mental wiggling changes that fact.

Deep State is/was inept at covering their tracks.

originally posted by: Phoenix

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Phoenix

I know what a priority date and a filing date is. It's quite clearly a 2020 patent. It even has 2020 on the patent number, which is a bit of a giveaway.

Attempting to use an approval date as starting point of prior knowledge is foisting another lie.

Still does not change the 2015 filing date which aptly demonstrated prior knowledge NIH by its own link to definition of priority date clearly says FILING date.

No amount of mental wiggling changes that fact.

Deep State is/was inept at covering their tracks.

The filing date is 2020, not 2015.

You just can't or won't get it so at this point I'll give up on you.

There's none so blind as those that won't see.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Phoenix

You just don't understand the patent process. If I develop technology say for example a way to encode RNA. Then I seek a patent using that process to develop something I can use the original patent date as they are now linked.

This doesn't change the filing date it just makes it so another person cant use my patent to create say a vaccine and not infringe on my patent for the vaccine. So any patent that uses the earlier process will automatically fall under the new patent.

There are ways around this but the bottom line is the date is to make sure a competitor doesnt develop a vaccine similar to mine.

I fully understand - I file on my idea to protect my intellectual property while waiting for patent approval which can take years - my filing protects me from another coming along a year later making same or similar claim with tweaks, so far so good right.

If I filed a placeholder claim so to speak in 2015 using the name or process having to do with a specific item such as Covid-19 testing I must have knowledge of Covid-19 to do so in the first place.

Now if my process was named "not over my dead body detector" then I'd clearly not have a patent filed or approved for Covid-19 in 2015.

I take what you're claiming is my filing of the "not over my dead body detector" would suborn a later or subsequent "Covid-19" detector and somehow my "not over my dead body detector" filing would then have its filing date magically moved forward 5 years and have its definition changed to "Covid-19 detector" rather that its original name of "not over my dead body detector"

Have I got it about right



Again I think many here are purposely conflating their facts filing vs, approval as above example is tediously convoluted even for a bureaucracy.

originally posted by: Phoenix

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Phoenix

You just don't understand the patent process. If I develop technology say for example a way to encode RNA. Then I seek a patent using that process to develop something I can use the original patent date as they are now linked.

This doesn't change the filing date it just makes it so another person cant use my patent to create say a vaccine and not infringe on my patent for the vaccine. So any patent that uses the earlier process will automatically fall under the new patent.

There are ways around this but the bottom line is the date is to make sure a competitor doesnt develop a vaccine similar to mine.

I fully understand - I file on my idea to protect my intellectual property while waiting for patent approval which can take years - my filing protects me from another coming along a year later making same or similar claim with tweaks, so far so good right.

If I filed a placeholder claim so to speak in 2015 using the name or process having to do with a specific item such as Covid-19 testing I must have knowledge of Covid-19 to do so in the first place.

Now if my process was named "not over my dead body detector" then I'd clearly not have a patent filed or approved for Covid-19 in 2015.

I take what you're claiming is my filing of the "not over my dead body detector" would suborn a later or subsequent "Covid-19" detector and somehow my "not over my dead body detector" filing would then have its filing date magically moved forward 5 years and have its definition changed to "Covid-19 detector" rather that its original name of "not over my dead body detector"

Have I got it about right

No.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: Phoenix

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Phoenix

You just don't understand the patent process. If I develop technology say for example a way to encode RNA. Then I seek a patent using that process to develop something I can use the original patent date as they are now linked.

This doesn't change the filing date it just makes it so another person cant use my patent to create say a vaccine and not infringe on my patent for the vaccine. So any patent that uses the earlier process will automatically fall under the new patent.

There are ways around this but the bottom line is the date is to make sure a competitor doesnt develop a vaccine similar to mine.

I fully understand - I file on my idea to protect my intellectual property while waiting for patent approval which can take years - my filing protects me from another coming along a year later making same or similar claim with tweaks, so far so good right.

If I filed a placeholder claim so to speak in 2015 using the name or process having to do with a specific item such as Covid-19 testing I must have knowledge of Covid-19 to do so in the first place.

Now if my process was named "not over my dead body detector" then I'd clearly not have a patent filed or approved for Covid-19 in 2015.

I take what you're claiming is my filing of the "not over my dead body detector" would suborn a later or subsequent "Covid-19" detector and somehow my "not over my dead body detector" filing would then have its filing date magically moved forward 5 years and have its definition changed to "Covid-19 detector" rather that its original name of "not over my dead body detector"

Have I got it about right

No.

Then provide a linked site explaining your short BS reply as it PLAINLY says 2015 filing date in my link to NIH patent listing, here is linked explanation and definiton of dates on NIH,

PubChemDocs

Record Dates
Each PubChem record has multiple dates associated with it. Most dates correspond to key events associated with a record, such as when it was added or modified. They do not guarantee the precise moments, for example, when data becomes publicly available. [There may be a lag of a day or more before data is publicly accessible. In addition, the findability of a record may lag even further as some search systems are updated on a weekly basis.] Please note that PubChem allows contributed substances and bioassays to be held back from public access by the data contributor. This ‘Hold-Until’ mechanism enables the contributor to obtain record identifiers and to time data release (such as to coincide with a publication). Below is a description of dates associated with PubChem BioAssay, Compound, and Substance records.

Nothing there that supports anything you and others are claiming at all period.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Phoenix

I know what a priority date and a filing date is. It's quite clearly a 2020 patent. It even has 2020 on the patent number, which is a bit of a giveaway.

So then this patent on the site I linked would have been filed in the year 5969 lol.

US5969156-A

originally posted by: Phoenix

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: Phoenix

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Phoenix

You just don't understand the patent process. If I develop technology say for example a way to encode RNA. Then I seek a patent using that process to develop something I can use the original patent date as they are now linked.

This doesn't change the filing date it just makes it so another person cant use my patent to create say a vaccine and not infringe on my patent for the vaccine. So any patent that uses the earlier process will automatically fall under the new patent.

There are ways around this but the bottom line is the date is to make sure a competitor doesnt develop a vaccine similar to mine.

I fully understand - I file on my idea to protect my intellectual property while waiting for patent approval which can take years - my filing protects me from another coming along a year later making same or similar claim with tweaks, so far so good right.

If I filed a placeholder claim so to speak in 2015 using the name or process having to do with a specific item such as Covid-19 testing I must have knowledge of Covid-19 to do so in the first place.

Now if my process was named "not over my dead body detector" then I'd clearly not have a patent filed or approved for Covid-19 in 2015.

I take what you're claiming is my filing of the "not over my dead body detector" would suborn a later or subsequent "Covid-19" detector and somehow my "not over my dead body detector" filing would then have its filing date magically moved forward 5 years and have its definition changed to "Covid-19 detector" rather that its original name of "not over my dead body detector"

Have I got it about right

No.

Then provide a linked site explaining your short BS reply as it PLAINLY says 2015 filing date in my link to NIH patent listing, here is linked explanation and definiton of dates on NIH,

PubChemDocs

Record Dates
Each PubChem record has multiple dates associated with it. Most dates correspond to key events associated with a record, such as when it was added or modified. They do not guarantee the precise moments, for example, when data becomes publicly available. [There may be a lag of a day or more before data is publicly accessible. In addition, the findability of a record may lag even further as some search systems are updated on a weekly basis.] Please note that PubChem allows contributed substances and bioassays to be held back from public access by the data contributor. This ‘Hold-Until’ mechanism enables the contributor to obtain record identifiers and to time data release (such as to coincide with a publication). Below is a description of dates associated with PubChem BioAssay, Compound, and Substance records.

Nothing there that supports anything you and others are claiming at all period.

That's from PubChem. This from the US Patent Office:

"United States Patent Application: 0200279585" appft.uspto.gov.../netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&s1=20200279585.PGNR.


Filed: May 17 2020.


Oops. Link is wrong. But you posted the USPO link yourself so there you go. Check it out

originally posted by: TrollMagnet
a reply to: BrujaRebooted

There is a lot of reason to assume China released the Delta variant on India intentionally. That happened at the exact same time they were having that conflict on the border. Check the timeframe. Next thing you know, India has the Delta variant. If China was not punished the first time, why would China not just keep releasing whatever the next nasty thing is they have for us? They dont even get any blame, let alone push-back.

Oh wow. The stuff of absolute nightmare. Perhaps this is why they seem to call the tune these days.

originally posted by: Doctor Smith

originally posted by: BrujaRebooted
a reply to: Doctor Smith

These viruses mutate quickly so the vaccines may work in the beginning but they cause the virus to mutate

You never did answer when asked how this happens. In India, where Delta appeared, there was very little vaccination.

Please stop making this claim, when there is no evidence of such.

Their was like one area in India that used Ivermectin for a very short time unfortunately. Covid vaccine: India gave more jabs than G7 nations combined in August

This link is from 3 days ago. Delta has been spreading for months!... Yes, India is now vaxing. It wasnt when widespread Alpha mutated into Delta there because it had so much opportunity to mutate!

Enough. Just stop. We all see you.

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes

originally posted by: BrujaRebooted

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: XipeTotex

the clotshot

Classic!

For the clot virus. As covid causes same. more often.

Did you miss the alliteration?

No, but it was too obvious to be really clever.

originally posted by: BrujaRebooted

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes

originally posted by: BrujaRebooted

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: XipeTotex

the clotshot

Classic!

For the clot virus. As covid causes same. more often.

Did you miss the alliteration?

No, but it was too obvious to be really clever.