Why aren't there more single nitrate products?

[The_Old_Guy]

Its like the whole prop blend thing - im all for it as it protects peoples investments in R&D. Hardly any supplement users are actually aware of what they are using so the argument that its for deceptive purposes, is IMO, flawed.

Are you telling me that I couldn't take a prop blended product to say, Microbac Labs in PA, pay them whatever-thousand dollars an assay costs, and find out exactly what is in it? Now switch me with a multi-million dollar supp company, who already has a good relationship with a lab - you don't think MusclePharm couldn't find out what is in a prop blend?

Prop blends *are* about hiding dosing from the customer, because anyone with money (ie. rival companies) can find out what is in it.

 

[Myokemist]

Patents in this industry are incredibly difficult to obtain. All the USPTO office has to do is argue the point of "anyone skilled in the art" could develop the same idea, and your patent is trashed.

 

[Spaniard]

Im losing my patents...

Hahaha!!!!! Very clever

Are you telling me that I couldn't take a prop blended product to say, Microbac Labs in PA, pay them whatever-thousand dollars an assay costs, and find out exactly what is in it? Now switch me with a multi-million dollar supp company, who already has a good relationship with a lab - you don't think MusclePharm couldn't find out what is in a prop blend?

Prop blends *are* about hiding dosing from the customer, because anyone with money (ie. rival companies) can find out what is in it.

Agreed 100%

Patents in this industry are incredibly difficult to obtain. All the USPTO office has to do is argue the point of "anyone skilled in the art" could develop the same idea, and your patent is trashed.

Then why is TL winning all these patent infringement cases? I'm sure the companies that went up against him thought they could prove those points as well

 

[Admin]

Then why is TL winning all these patent infringement cases? I'm sure the companies that went up against him thought they could prove those points as well

Good lawyers.

 

[Myokemist]

Good lawyers.

This and that shows the patent is well executed. If you are awarded a patent in this industry, it's (majority of the time) warranted.

 

[thebigt]

Patents in this industry are incredibly difficult to obtain. All the USPTO office has to do is argue the point of "anyone skilled in the art" could develop the same idea, and your patent is trashed.

this arguement certainly could have been made for creatine nitrate......

 

[thebigt]

Or they haven't created anything novel that is worth spending the $10-15k to patent.

Patents aren't evil, they're part of the Constitution. It's necessary to protect innovation because it provides incentive to find the next useful invention. If companies couldn't protect something they spend millions or billions on then they wouldn't bother innovating.

lollololol...what if pes had patented arimistane? they were the 1st to use it i believe...

patents in high tech are just an advertizing ploy, imo....a little reverse engineering and tweaking and good to go. to think that R@D and innovation would stop without patents is totally asinine, imo....every company just wants bragging rights that they were the 1st!!!

 

[bdcc]

lollololol...what if pes had patented arimistane? they were the 1st to use it i believe...

patents in high tech are just an advertizing ploy, imo....a little reverse engineering and tweaking and good to go. to think that R@D and innovation would stop without patents is totally asinine, imo....every company just wants bragging rights that they were the 1st!!!

We weren't first to use this. We did bring higenamine to market which is now very popular as well as bringing anacyclus pyrethrum to market which was copied by other companies.

It is hard putting a lot of work into research knowing it can be copied so easily.

 

[thebigt]

We weren't first to use this. We did bring higenamine to market which is now very popular as well as bringing anacyclus pyrethrum to market which was copied by other companies.

It is hard putting a lot of work into research knowing it can be copied so easily.

but it doesn't seem to stop natty....props to your boss!!!

natty understands the benefit of being the 1st and plenty of people recognize and appreciate this....pes is not the cheapest products, but people pay more because of the innovation and quality behind pes!!!!

 

[Jiigzz]

Are you telling me that I couldn't take a prop blended product to say, Microbac Labs in PA, pay them whatever-thousand dollars an assay costs, and find out exactly what is in it? Now switch me with a multi-million dollar supp company, who already has a good relationship with a lab - you don't think MusclePharm couldn't find out what is in a prop blend?

Prop blends *are* about hiding dosing from the customer, because anyone with money (ie. rival companies) can find out what is in it.

Are you sure? Go ask a member of the gym you go to what Beta Alanine is and what dose it is typically used at and report back with what they say.

Most gym users couldnt care LESS what supps actually contain; just because you do doesnt mean the rest do, tjats why crowd favourites AlWAYS remain popular

Why bother hiding something from someone who doesnt care in the first place? Thats like playing hide and seek by yourself. Noones coming to find you so why bother hiding

 

[Nyrin]

Are you sure? Go ask a member of the gym you go to what Beta Alanine is and what dose it is typically used at and report back with what they say.

Most gym users couldnt care LESS what supps actually contain; just because you do doesnt mean the rest do, tjats why crowd favourites AlWAYS remain popular

Yep. Far and above, people buy based on marketing alone. Look at the relative success of products like "The Curse!" for evidence. Sad as it is, the first question that most ask when a new preworkout product is announced is not what the formula is or what its benefits are, but "what flavors will it have?"

 

[Spaniard]

We weren't first to use this. We did bring higenamine to market which is now very popular as well as bringing anacyclus pyrethrum to market which was copied by other companies.

It is hard putting a lot of work into research knowing it can be copied so easily.

Didn't Gaspari introduce Anacyclus first? Or at the very same time?

 

[jamesm11]

lollololol...what if pes had patented arimistane? they were the 1st to use it i believe...

patents in high tech are just an advertizing ploy, imo....a little reverse engineering and tweaking and good to go. to think that R@D and innovation would stop without patents is totally asinine, imo....every company just wants bragging rights that they were the 1st!!!

Stop embarrassing yourself. Patents are solely about making $$, they're a right to exclude. The entire purpose of a patent is to further innovation, regardless of you opinion. It's specifically in the U.S. Constitution "[. . .] to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries" Not really a new idea.

We weren't first to use this. We did bring higenamine to market which is now very popular as well as bringing anacyclus pyrethrum to market which was copied by other companies.

It is hard putting a lot of work into research knowing it can be copied so easily.

Both of those compounds are naturally occurring and have been used for centuries. you can't patent plants and compounds that occur naturally. Plus they had been around for a long time, so there's no way you could have been first to use. Researching studies and bringing something to market is not patentable. That's why people can copy it.

You can argue that it's shi*ty for companies to wait to see if your product sells and then create their own, but that's not a question of IP. It happens in every field unfortunately (especially technology).

I'm not casting an opinion either way, just explaining the differences between this and the nitrate patent.

 

[mw1]

lollololol...what if pes had patented arimistane? they were the 1st to use it i believe...

patents in high tech are just an advertizing ploy, imo....a little reverse engineering and tweaking and good to go. to think that R@D and innovation would stop without patents is totally asinine, imo....every company just wants bragging rights that they were the 1st!!!

Now why would they want to patent a product that's not dshea compliant...don't really think that would be in there best interests.
As for the nitrate patents , I am glad TL has them. If not you would have every Chinese powder shop throwing stuff out with who knows what in it. OR you would have comanies selling creatine nitrate in bulk (like one company accidently did), which of course could be a safety issue if some kid takes 10g of CN

 

[kisaj]

I hope everyone understands and enjoys that we are one of the few groups of people in this large industry that gets into this with the heat and passion that seems to accompany threads. Like Jiigzz said, go ask anyone about quantities or ratios in their supplements and see the reaction.

Anyhow, carry on. Just pointing out how enjoyable the debates are.

 

[USPlabsRep]

Stop embarrassing yourself. Patents are solely about making $$, they're a right to exclude. The entire purpose of a patent is to further innovation, regardless of you opinion. It's specifically in the U.S. Constitution "[. . .] to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries" Not really a new idea.



Both of those compounds are naturally occurring and have been used for centuries. you can't patent plants and compounds that occur naturally. Plus they had been around for a long time, so there's no way you could have been first to use. Researching studies and bringing something to market is not patentable. That's why people can copy it.

You can argue that it's shi*ty for companies to wait to see if your product sells and then create their own, but that's not a question of IP. It happens in every field unfortunately (especially technology).

I'm not casting an opinion either way, just explaining the differences between this and the nitrate patent.

You are confused....to be sold as a dietary ingredient like Arginine Nitrate is, it must occur in nature.

There hundreds of natural occurring compounds that are patented and there are different types of patents.

 

[USPlabsRep]

I hope everyone understands and enjoys that we are one of the few groups of people in this large industry that gets into this with the heat and passion that seems to accompany threads. Like Jiigzz said, go ask anyone about quantities or ratios in their supplements and see the reaction.

Anyhow, carry on. Just pointing out how enjoyable the debates are.

two Vodkas in...

 

[kisaj]

No, I am being serious. I mean, I guess I could just argue as an alternative.

 

[Jiigzz]

I hope everyone understands and enjoys that we are one of the few groups of people in this large industry that gets into this with the heat and passion that seems to accompany threads. Like Jiigzz said, go ask anyone about quantities or ratios in their supplements and see the reaction.

Anyhow, carry on. Just pointing out how enjoyable the debates are.

On the internet, we debate everything.

 

[kisaj]

It's why I'm here.

 

[NewAgeMayan]

On the internet, we debate everything.

No we don't.

 

[jamesm11]

You are confused....to be sold as a dietary ingredient like Arginine Nitrate is, it must occur in nature.

There hundreds of natural occurring compounds that are patented and there are different types of patents.

No, I'm not mistaken, you are. You're probably thinking DSHEA compliance.

It's extremely difficult to patents things that occur in nature. Go read some cases, starting with Myriad. You can sometimes patent methods for extracting or synthesizing compounds or variations of the compound. Sometimes combinations but that's a whole other issue due to KSR.

I know there are different patents, it's what I do. Pretty sure you told me that "patent pending" was meaningful too (made me lol).

 

[De__eB]

No, I'm not mistaken, you are. You're probably thinking DSHEA compliance.

It's extremely difficult to patents things that occur in nature. Go read some cases, starting with Myriad. You can sometimes patent methods for extracting or synthesizing compounds or variations of the compound. Sometimes combinations but that's a whole other issue due to KSR.

I know there are different patents, it's what I do. Pretty sure you told me that "patent pending" was meaningful too (made me lol).

It is extremely viable to get utility patents on natural compounds.

Also, patent pending is very meaningful.

--

See: 35 U.S.C. 292 False marking.

If you mark your product patent pending to imply future enforcability so that competitors don't touch an ingredient, and no such application is ever published, you are open to a tremendous legal liability, up to and including every single individual instance of the words 'patent pending' in relation to that product, on packaging for that product, and in marketing for that product.

--

Also, infringement liability can begin from the moment a patent application or provisional application is published. So citing your already published application as patent pending when informing potential violators is also therefore meaningful.

--

If patents is what you do, and you don't understand utility patents and relevance of patent pending, you should probably do something else.

 

[bdcc]

Didn't Gaspari introduce Anacyclus first? Or at the very same time?

Nope, our was first.

It is a good example though. R&D on an ingredient, play around with different extracts and dosages, run a 20~ person beta test on a forum (AnaBeta-01) and then find your ingredient shortly making it's way into other company's products lol.

 

[Tabascoonall]

Can't we just all get along hahha

 

[jamesm11]

It is extremely viable to get utility patents on natural compounds.

Also, patent pending is very meaningful.

--

See: 35 U.S.C. 292 False marking.

If you mark your product patent pending to imply future enforcability so that competitors don't touch an ingredient, and no such application is ever published, you are open to a tremendous legal liability, up to and including every single individual instance of the words 'patent pending' in relation to that product, on packaging for that product, and in marketing for that product.

--

Also, infringement liability can begin from the moment a patent application or provisional application is published. So citing your already published application as patent pending when informing potential violators is also therefore meaningful.

--

If patents is what you do, and you don't understand utility patents and relevance of patent pending, you should probably do something else.

You can file a provisional, mark your product as patent pending and never file a non-provisional after 1 year. Plus there's extensions. For that year it is patent pending.

It also takes about 3 years to issue, so you can call it patent pending even if it never issues for those 3 years.

That means any pro se can throw together a provisional and call it patent pending as a marketing ploy. The general public seems to think patent pending adds to legitimacy. So year, I'll continue to make $250k+ thanks.

 

[De__eB]

You can file a provisional, mark your product as patent pending and never file a non-provisional after 1 year. For that year it is patent pending. It also takes about 3 years to issue, so you can call it patent pending even if it never issues for those 3 years. I'll continue to make $250k+ thanks

Still not sure why you don't think that's meaningful?

 

[jamesm11]

Still not sure why you don't think that's meaningful?

See edit, it's used as a marketing ploy. Or can be used on a supplement that will never issue because of obviousness. People think patents mean it works.

I know it gives priority. I'm saying that the public sees it another way.

 

[The_Old_Guy]

Are you sure? Go ask a member of the gym you go to what Beta Alanine is and what dose it is typically used at and report back with what they say.

Most gym users couldnt care LESS what supps actually contain; just because you do doesnt mean the rest do, tjats why crowd favourites AlWAYS remain popular

Why bother hiding something from someone who doesnt care in the first place? Thats like playing hide and seek by yourself. Noones coming to find you so why bother hiding

The first thing I'd ask you is this:

Is it possible for me to take a prop blend product to a lab (and in the US, they don't even need to find out *what* is in it, just the amounts, as assuming no criminality, it's on the label) - and find out how much of each ingredient is in it?

The answer is yes. So the argument that this is about protecting a "formula" is ridiculous, don't you agree? To simplify, you either have to state that a lab *can* discover amounts, or it *can't*.

As far as your other point - "Suckers gonna be suckers". I agree with you that a majority don't know jack. But it's the rest of us that prop blends are designed for - the ones that "trust" a company, so give them the benefit of the doubt. I see it here all the time: "I don't like that it's a prop blend, but I give Company X the benefit of the doubt". But if you list that your PrWO only has 500mg of Beta Alanine? All sales to educated consumers will tank. So prop blend it and rely on "trust". That's my opinion anyway - I agree with kisaj that I enjoy this topic.

 

[De__eB]

See edit, it's used as a marketing ploy. Or can be used on a supplement that will never issue because of obviousness. People think patents mean it works.

I know it gives priority. I'm saying that the public sees it another way.

I mean, however the public sees it, it's still a hugely important part of establishing scope of enforcement action and infringement liability.

Honestly, it's a shame that it is so difficult for competitors to sue over misuse of patent terminology in marketing, the risks of misusing it are realistically negligible since enforcement from the government side is largely non-existent especially in a relatively small market.

 

[jamesm11]

I mean, however the public sees it, it's still a hugely important part of establishing scope of enforcement action and infringement liability.

Honestly, it's a shame that it is so difficult for competitors to sue over misuse of patent terminology in marketing, the risks of misusing it are realistically negligible since enforcement from the government side is largely non-existent especially in a relatively small market.

I'll agree. Kind of the opposite with the TM/unfair practices too. It's all about protecting the consumer from false advertising, improper claims, etc.

 

[thebigt]

Stop embarrassing yourself. Patents are solely about making $$, they're a right to exclude. The entire purpose of a patent is to further innovation, regardless of you opinion. It's specifically in the U.S. Constitution "[. . .] to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries" Not really a new idea.



Both of those compounds are naturally occurring and have been used for centuries. you can't patent plants and compounds that occur naturally. Plus they had been around for a long time, so there's no way you could have been first to use. Researching studies and bringing something to market is not patentable. That's why people can copy it.

You can argue that it's shi*ty for companies to wait to see if your product sells and then create their own, but that's not a question of IP. It happens in every field unfortunately (especially technology).

I'm not casting an opinion either way, just explaining the differences between this and the nitrate patent.

i am willing to risk embarrassment to stand up to something i think is wrong....i firmly believe what this man is doing is wrong rather it is legal or not!!!

 

[Jiigzz]

The first thing I'd ask you is this:

Is it possible for me to take a prop blend product to a lab (and in the US, they don't even need to find out *what* is in it, just the amounts, as assuming no criminality, it's on the label) - and find out how much of each ingredient is in it?

The answer is yes. So the argument that this is about protecting a "formula" is ridiculous, don't you agree? To simplify, you either have to state that a lab *can* discover amounts, or it *can't*.

As far as your other point - "Suckers gonna be suckers". I agree with you that a majority don't know jack. But it's the rest of us that prop blends are designed for - the ones that "trust" a company, so give them the benefit of the doubt. I see it here all the time: "I don't like that it's a prop blend, but I give Company X the benefit of the doubt". But if you list that your PrWO only has 500mg of Beta Alanine? All sales to educated consumers will tank. So prop blend it and rely on "trust". That's my opinion anyway - I agree with kisaj that I enjoy this topic.

Its not hard to work out minimum levels without testing with some simple maths. The obvious ones have like 10 ingredients in a 10g prop blend and have creatine listed last (or other multi gram ingredients).

It likely goes both ways as opposed to being solely one way or another.

 

[hewhoisripped]

Food-grade potassium nitrate is used as a preservative/curing agent for actual food, so yes -- it'll be as safe as those prepared foods (e.g. jerky) are. Combining with a reducing agent like vitamin C is always advisable to limit nitrosamine formation (this is why nitrate products almost always have vitamin C in them; vitamin C is the reference reducing agent).

This is what I do. Only caviat is to not dose too close to training (antioxidant vit C).

 

[Spaniard]

This is what I do. Only caviat is to not dose too close to training (antioxidant vit C).

You shouldn't need to take a ton of vitamin c to prevent nitrosamine formation to where it becomes an issue.

 

[hewhoisripped]

You shouldn't need to take a ton of vitamin c to prevent nitrosamine formation to where it becomes an issue.

What dose do you think would suffice, and where do you get it from (literature)? From what I've seen, most are using a 1:1 ratio, and ~.6g of vit C is certainly not a negligible dose.

 

[cumminslifter]

What dose do you think would suffice, and where do you get it from (literature)? From what I've seen, most are using a 1:1 ratio, and ~.6g of vit C is certainly not a negligible dose.

most products have about 60mg when containing nitrates

 

[hewhoisripped]

most products have about 60mg when containing nitrates

I was just going on what I remembered off the top of my head from the iForce KNO3 label.

 

[DonnieM]

Bumping this 1 year old thread to get tips about reasonable priced potassium nitrate product/or other product containing good dose it in the UK/EU? Thanks

 

[kboxer7]

Bumping this 1 year old thread to get tips about reasonable priced potassium nitrate product/or other product containing good dose it in the UK/EU? Thanks

iForce KNO3 is cheap and gtg.

OL HYDRO3 has KNO3 + a couple other pump ingredients in caps. Good value and the bottle lasts forever.

 

[Woody]

iForce KNO3 is cheap and gtg.

OL HYDRO3 has KNO3 + a couple other pump ingredients in caps. Good value and the bottle lasts forever.

Invalid Link Removed