On Oct 2, 11:48*am, Doug Freyburger wrote:
wrote:

The enduring mystery all these years later is why McNeil
has never marketed liquid Splenda at retail. *They have
Splenda mixed with sugar, flavored Splenda, etc, but
no liquid in a little bottle. * Also, other companies are
marketing sucralose products, but I haven't seen them do
it either.

Agreed.

And it's so much more convenient to put two
drops of it in your coffee, than to pour or spoon out the
powder. * Leaves me wondering why. * Maybe if you squirt
a drop of it in your eye it blinds you...... * I'm kind of kidding
of course, but it leaves you wondering if there is something
about it that we all don't know.

My speculation -

At first they wanted to restrict their products to protect their patent.

I don't see how restricting their products has anything
to do with protecting their patent. When you have a patent
you want to get as much out of it as you can before it
expires. That usually includes not only using it in anything and
everything you make, but also possibly licensing it to others.




Then they realized that sucrolose is so sweet t has to be diluted 600 to
1 to make it volume equivalent so they'd need to dilute it 60 to 1 to
make it like saccharine drops.

I wonder if they think people have a bad memory of sacharine drops, or
if they think people will flip out when they learn their drops are 59
parts water.

Most likely they see the price of what the drops would sell for and they
don't want a drop product established on the market when the the patent
expires and generics appear.

I don't see how that makes a difference. If anything, if I were
them, I would want a drop product on the market, establishing
Splenda as the preferred brand product for drops, instead of
waiting for a competitor to introduce it.

And hasn't any patent expired already? There are generics
available. I know I bought one a few years ago at Walmart
for example.