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 : IDPH--Positive preliminary results for pivotal trial of ID

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Pseudo Biologist who wrote (365)2/13/1997 4:27:00 PM
From: James Perry   of 1762
 
When two companies decide to merge, it is usual to seek response from the government giving assurance that no anti-trust objections will be raised. And it is not unusual that the response given is conditional; "We (the government) won't fight your merger provided you divest this, that or the other" with the divested portion being something which would give "too much" monopolist advantage. While it seems odd or unusual that this would apply to a prospective cancer cure product, it could be (I do not know) that the different research efforts of the two companies, when combined, could so blanket cancer research that other companies could not effectively function in that area without running afowl of their patents, etc. I would agree that it would seemingly make more sense to attack the barriers that would be raised rather than some emerging product. But again, I also don't know that the conditions for accepting the merger did not extend to those barriers, as well as requiring divestiture of this product. Of course,the companies have the option of (a)not merging, or (b) selling off the objectionable portion and then merging with the blessing of the government or (c) merge and let the government contest the legality in court.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext