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: Pseudo Biologist who wrote (403)	6/24/1999 8:42:00 PM
From: Biomaven	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 579

PB is quite right here - PFE has multiple strings to their bow, and they are clearly not conceding either the validity of the patent or whether they infringed on its claims. At this distance it's impossible for us to know which (if any) of their three claims is the real one. ("I didn't kill him; even if I did kill him it was an accident; and anyhow I was insane when I did whatever it is I didn't do." <g>) Maybe I should start a biotech patent thread to facilitate discussing this. ("When in doubt, start a thread.") Peter

To: Pseudo Biologist who wrote (403)	6/24/1999 8:47:00 PM
From: scaram(o)uche	Respond to of 579

>> Note, they still want to say that the patents are invalid (why? - I'd say the alleged and mysterious prior art is not out of the picture) << If they have prior art, what do they need the "morality" argument for? It's really quite simple in that case. This reflects what knowledgeable insiders are saying about the existence of "decent" prior art....... iqc.com Your second point..... "Pfizer is not infringing". Then why did they foresee suit by Sibia? Why wouldn't a simple letter stating "we don't use your assay, but we wish you the best of luck" suffice? For Cohen/Boyer, one third of royalty revenue goes to the inventors. Does one give up the potential for profit if one leaves academia and goes to a company other than Pfizer? The patent system is designed to foster invention, for the good of a nation and for justice in trade. If you want a tool at Ace Hardware, you'd damn well best be prepared to pay for it, as you'll be arrested if you consider it yours for the taking. Further, if you take it, walk out, and get caught later, you're still guilty. You can whine in front of a jury all you like, but you're guilty. I'll start a systematic search through the issued Pfizer patents. Also, does anyone know anything about the patent estate that transferred to Anaderm? PB..... I am so ticked that I will choose to answer your questions, to the best of my abilities, over many posts and perhaps weeks. Thanks for asking them.

To: Pseudo Biologist who wrote (403)	6/24/1999 11:28:00 PM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 579

<. Only the last, kind of funny, point "SIBI is misusing its patents" falls under this pseudo ethical category.> Who knows right, but it looks to be that they are asking the court to "find" that they didn't infringe because of "SIBI misusing its patents", or at least that could be the case: <<The action was filed by PFE in anticipation of a patent-infringement suit by SIBI. PFE is seeking a declaratory judgement from the court to the effect that PFE has not infringed the patents,[**] that the patents are invalid and that SIBI is misusing its patents.>> notice the coma splice, there is no "because" [my take] and no "and" [your take] where I've inserted the **. I'll bet you a beer there's no freakin prior art, they're trying to run 'em over... what would that mean? Where are we... U.S. District court in Delaware. Hmmmm Seems to me if they expect to pull off what my take on it is they'd be going to the top right?? Who knows about that stuff? Peter? Where was SIBI's last victory won? DAK