Cistron Biotechnology(CIST)$.30 Message Board

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 : Cistron Biotechnology(CIST)$.30

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: scaram(o)uche who wrote (179)	11/21/1996 1:37:00 AM
From: Robert Cohen	of 2742

Hi Rick. I believe the issue of back pay was discussed previously in this thread. Possibly the discussion in the thread was based on the statement in the 10K that Dr. Edelman was to be paid 200 clams an hour for consulting work commencing in I believe, 1996. I do recall that Dr. Grausz worked without salary for I believe 1994, 1995 and 1996. I do not believe that the issue of back pay is a serious consideration in the decision to invest. As concerns the tax issue, I'm happy to report that I don't do any tax work and can only offer basically a layman's opinion. I suspect that the amount they receive is taxable. Naturally any losses or expenses could be deducted. The major issue with CIST seems to me to be the value of its business. Not being trained in science, I must defer to Rick whose opinion I hold in high esteem along with others knowledgeable in the field. I can comment on Vadim's thought that: "#2 Was mentioned before that CIST was suing for 3x the damage resulted from infringement of their patent rights. Assumed that the damage caused is not worth more than the patent itself. Also assumed that Immunex settled for less than what it was sued for. So, $21m < 3 x damage ==> damage > $7m ; patent worth > damage > $7m." I'm not certain that the fact that the case settled for 21 million leads to the conclusion that the patent is worth 7 million. The 3x damage issue arises in various statutes that call for multiple damages in certain situations. The case settled for 21 million, not because the patent was worth 7 million and that figure was tripled. Imuunex probably balanced the risk of getting whacked by a jury along with the possibility of having to pay multiple damages and CIST's attorney's fees. The 21 million is related to how Immunex saw its exposure, not the value of any patent. On the other hand, the patent could be worth 7 million, 70 million or 7 cents. For that information I must rely on Rick and others who convincingly argue its worth. I'm impressed with the increase in quarterly revenue and may jump in soon. I wish the lucky vacationers a romantic holiday. While strutting your stuff on sandy beaches, don't forget the CIST thread. Peace, Bob Cohen

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next