Date:   3/11/2008 7:11:45 PM ( 16 y ago)
Hits:   3,137
URL:   https://www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1130606

Actually, when you read the fine print, they don't claim the patent is for ambrotse. Only the associates think that the patent is for Ambrotse. Ambrotse is nowhere in the patent and patented is not on the Ambrotse jar. They even removed the patent pending mark on the last jar I saw. The patent is for 8 isolated and purified polysaccharides. It has nothing to do with ambrotse which has only 5-6 of the essential polysaccharides, and the sugars are not isolated and purified (meaning, over 97-99% pure polysaccharide) The aloe and the gums they use only contain these sugars, they are not pharmaceutical grade of over 97% purity. When you isolate and purify these sugars out of the ingredient in which they are contained, it actually renders them useless. (all except for the N-acetyl glucosamine, that is a useful isolated and purified sugar. It comes from shellfish, but its not ground up shellfish, the Sugar is isolated and purified from shellfish. There is nothing left of the shellfish and people with shellfish allergies can take it)

Very interesting discussion. I liked your PBJ analogy, considering smuckers or jiffy did try to patent PBJ a few years ago. (the frozen variety) You cant patent something that has been on the market or used for more than 12 months. If one could find a product with Aloe and Chondroitin that existed before 1992, the filing of the Patent, it would have 8 sugars and the patent would automatically be invalidated. I wonder if other glyco companies have thought of that? they should look for your average combination of supplements...mushrooms and aloe, aloe and glucosamine or chondroitin...then the patent infringement lawsuit would be over.
 

<< Return to the standard message view

fetched in 0.02 sec, referred by http://www.curezone.org/forums/fmp.asp?i=1130606