>>Um, StockHawk, correct me if I'm wrong...<<
Rose, Hi. You know, I always like people who type "um's" and I leave plenty of room for the possibility that I might be wrong, but based on what I have read, I think you are incorrect.
Forbes did a full page article on Bausch & Lomb in the 10/4/99 issue (it is available at their web site).
They note that laser surgery represents 15% of their pharm. division's revenue - that works out to $90 mil per year, wich is about what VISX did just the last quarter.
From the article:
"Bausch & Lomb's laser may turn out to be the weak link in its line. In the US, Bausch & Lomb faces an uphill battle to dislodge VISX, which has a lock on the market, thanks to patents on surgical procedures. Every time doctors perform laser surgery, they have to disburse a $250-per-eye royalty to VISX.
Users of Bausch & Lomb's laser will have to pay $250 per eye too, unless Carpenter (the CEO) strikes a deal with VISX. He's talking to the company about possibly cross-licensing technologies..."
I'll post the link later so that you can see that I haven't misquoted.
Rose, I have no doubt that Chiron makes a good machine - it is popular in Columbia where much pioneering Lasik work was done, but I haven't seen anything that would lead me to think doctors will change to Chiron. Many have invested in VISX machinery and training and switching cost are high (these machines cost half a mil) As for the royalty issue, if you have credible sources that dispute the reality of the royalty , please post it here and prove Forbes, wrong.
StockHawk |
