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 : PFE (Pfizer) How high will it go? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: margie who wrote (7988)	6/25/1999 3:58:00 PM
From: scaram(o)uche	Respond to of 9523

>> If this was any company besides Pfizer, you would call it a non-event << True. However, the "ethics" animosity goes way back, and I've been fed with "renewal" observations on an ongoing basis. >> Is it normal to expect royalties if a company discovers a new product, using a licensed drug discovery technology from another company? << Why do you append "from another company"? Do you believe that patent laws should differentiate a corporate effort from an academic one? 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. If there is open-and-shut prior art, then great, I'll quietly sneak off into a corner and lick my wounds. The fact that a jury trial was requested implies, to me, that PFE "ethics" will extend to an attempt to bury in BS. I've looked for sound prior art, and it is not easy to find. There was a huge race to develop transcription assays, and SIBI got there first, IMO. PFE has three ethical choices..... (1) show prior art, (2) circumvent the assay if they can't show prior art, or (3) pay SIBI for the right to use the tool.

To: margie who wrote (7988)	6/25/1999 4:20:00 PM
From: scaram(o)uche	Respond to of 9523

In the beginning, there was Cohen/Boyer, which begat biotech. There was debate about the breadth of claims relating to "use" patents, and it has been generally recognized that broad claims, relative to trade secrets, are desirable, for society, inventors, and the nations where inventions are conceived. It was a new issue. SIBI is an old biotech. They, and a few other companies (OSIP included, if you'd like to take a close look at Anaderm), correctly reasoned that broad "use" claims could be very profitable. I have no doubt, whatsoever, that if Pfizer scientists had been first to conceive (and reduce to practice) a transcription assay, they would have claimed it. Their (paraphrased) "We're good guys, look at our efforts with the Genomics Consortium" is bull. Whining bastards..... the research premium for SIBI is peanuts. There are other ways around royalty stacking, decisive routes that take guts rather than loud attorneys. This is, in my opinion, harassment.