I don't know what they mean by "reasonable and customary fees". We already know, from Pfizer, that SIBI asked for 0.5%.
Without protection for "use" patents, companies will maintain trade secrets, public disclosures will be discouraged, and benefit to the patient will be delayed. In this frame, I wonder if there is an "almost criminal" element to a big company suing a small, capital-constrained outfit.
"We have done exactly that by taking a role in the SNP Consortium"
Yeah, 10 years and millions later. They're now further along on that learning curve, looking to punish those who try to constrain them again. Sounds like a moral, high road, however.
It would actually be fun to argue these points in front of a jury. I don't agree with you, Peter and Max..... I don't think they plan on standing on anything other than the pseudo-ethical issue.
If I'm wrong, I'll step up and admit it. It's a clear stand, and one that I feel comfortable with. |
