ArQule Message Board - Msg: 10700349

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : ArQule

ARQL 20.00

0.0%

Jan 16 4:00 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: John Dwyer who wrote (368)	7/28/1999 8:56:00 PM
From: tommysdad	Read Replies (2) of 399

<<My point with the patent issue is that SEPR is developing an improved version of the same (patented) stuff. ARQL is (hopefully) coming up with novel molecules. >> That is precisely the point, and why SEPR is so different from ARQL. It's like comparing apples and oranges. (Kind of off topic): On the SEPR patent front, about five years ago I had occasion to read several EPO patent applications from SEPR. I thought they were full of holes and would never issue as U.S. patents or, if they did, would be easy for the original patent holder to shoot down. So I did not invest in SEPR at that time. Which is one reason I still have a day job. The point is that the original patent owner often WANTS the SEPR patent to issue. They're perfectly willing to pay royalties to get another 12-14 years of patent protection for an "ICE". Even if the SEPR patent is bogus, who is going to fight it? OTOH, if an ARQL collaborator can find a way to get around paying ARQL royalties, they probably will. I'm just hoping ARQL makes it hard for them to do so.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next