John:
What am I missing???
<<It is true that in the angio deal BMY acquired a right of first refusal on intellectual property rights acquired by ENMD from Childrens (and elsewhere) relating to anti-angiogensis technologies in general, but such a right is not an option to acquire - it the right to trump a competitor's bid if, and only if, the grantor of the right decides to sell. ENMD chose not to sell. >>
I didn't read contract between ENMD and BMY, but if you have right of first refusal of something (who has second right, third,..and so on???, actually who needs first right to refuse), than there is option (under certain condition) to buy the same.
I do not buy story that ENMD chose not to sell, if there was financially and materially attractive bid. Also, ENMD was not in position to *pick and chose* freely. Why they will refuse BMY offer for Endo, when they were more than happy with Angio and Thalido license? Because BMY cancel Thalido??? Or Children's was not happy with BMY (or other pharma) offer? So, they went for technical and financial support at NCI, the last resource for compounds and company!!!!
Bottom line is (IMO), BMY did pass on Endo. Simply because: 1. they are unstable proteins, and 2. there are small molecules, or their combinations which can successfully mimic action(s) (???) of the An/En.
Also, Childern's satisfaction with ENMD cancer plan and programs, including license to third party, (however they did make nice bucks selling ENMD holding) suggest recent collaboration between Child and GZMO.
Miljenko
|
