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: scaram(o)uche who wrote (408)	6/25/1999 4:20:00 PM
From: margie	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 579

<Why do you append "from another company"? Do you believe that patent laws should differentiate a corporate effort from an academic one?> No. Sorry, it was an oversight, I did mean all patents, regardless of where they come from. I've been away from academia for awhile. <If you use someone's tool and they had the foresight to patent the tool's design, you should pay for it or you are stealing.> I do think they should have to license the technology; I thought or would think that what is in question is royalties if a new drug is discovered, using SIBI's technology. I do agree Pfizer shouldn't be suing SIBI. Either way, they lose. If they win, it will be perceived as Goliath vs David, so big deal. If they lose, they lose, and it makes them look pretty stupid, especially after SIBI's win against Cadus. Was the same patent involved? Having a jury trial decide patent issues is like having a jury decide which clinical endpoints should be used for clinical trials. What does a jury know about the science? Looking at the post by Luke, I haven't had time to read it, but I hope Pfizer hasn't set SIBI up for a declaratory judgement in their favor, just on technicalities of patent law based on other legal decisions.