Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : SIBIA Neurosciences (SIBI) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LLCF who wrote (398)	6/24/1999 5:52:00 PM
From: Biomaven	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 579

That's certainly an interesting position that PFE is taking. Their point is basically that they should be allowed to buy one of your patented shovels and it should be no business of yours whether they then dig up gold with it. At one level their argument is appealing - imagine if using some of the basic research techniques (like say electrophoresis or x-ray crystallography) meant you had to pay royalties on anything that you then discover. At another level, notice what they are asking for - that the terms of the license be set by the legal system, not the patent holder. They are apparently saying that it is a misuse of the patent for SIBI to demand royalties on discoveries made using the patent. I know just enough patent law to know that I am out of my depth on this one; but it's sure going to be interesting. Peter

To: LLCF who wrote (398)	6/24/1999 6:46:00 PM
From: scaram(o)uche	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 579

This is very good news indeed. Pfizer hasn't been paying on Cohen Boyer all this time?

To: LLCF who wrote (398)	6/24/1999 7:49:00 PM
From: scaram(o)uche	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 579

Our patent laws are designed to reward public disclosure. Compare Cohen-Boyer to Kohler-Milstein. Look at the reaction of British citizens when they realized that the public disclosure of K-M had been made before protection was sought. This really has me upset. They are posing this issue as an ethical one, and I am intimate with Pfizer ethics.

To: LLCF who wrote (398)	6/24/1999 10:37:00 PM
From: scaram(o)uche	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 579

I don't know what they mean by "reasonable and customary fees". We already know, from Pfizer, that SIBI asked for 0.5%. Without protection for "use" patents, companies will maintain trade secrets, public disclosures will be discouraged, and benefit to the patient will be delayed. In this frame, I wonder if there is an "almost criminal" element to a big company suing a small, capital-constrained outfit. "We have done exactly that by taking a role in the SNP Consortium" Yeah, 10 years and millions later. They're now further along on that learning curve, looking to punish those who try to constrain them again. Sounds like a moral, high road, however. It would actually be fun to argue these points in front of a jury. I don't agree with you, Peter and Max..... I don't think they plan on standing on anything other than the pseudo-ethical issue. If I'm wrong, I'll step up and admit it. It's a clear stand, and one that I feel comfortable with.