SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Biotech Valuation
CRSP 55.08-2.9%Dec 26 9:30 AM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Pseudo Biologist who wrote (1229)6/23/2000 7:01:00 PM
From: Biomaven  Read Replies (2) of 52153
 
PB:

Isn't it obvious?

Indeed looks like it. Maybe you should have been a lawyer. <g>

In my defense I can only plead that I found the citation and added it in a "14th minute" edit of my post, without actually digesting it.

So bottom line here is that if the ABGX patent is indeed boosting the stock, it should be boosting MEDX as well.

It's still worth trying to differentiate the MEDX and ABGX technology, though. Patents not yet applied for in 1997 may yet have some bite, although we likely wouldn't know yet. I seem to recall you saying that the stuff MEDX licensed from Kirin early this year looked good. Is that right?

It's hard to know to what extent ABGX and MEDX are going to be driven by their existing internal therapeutic programs vs. their partnerships.

As think I've said before, the right investment strategy is probably just a basket of the main players - ABGX, MEDX and PDLI in the US, and throw in the main European players for the adventurous. Seems like all these guys are going to have nothing but good news from a stream of new partnerships and milestones in existing partnerships for the foreseeable future. Given that, they are likely always going to look too expensive. <g>

Peter
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext