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: margie who wrote (418)	6/25/1999 5:37:00 PM
From: Pseudo Biologist	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 579

Thanks for the perspective. The issue of downstream royalties is far from simple. On one hand (PFE's argument), it sounds unfair to pay royalties on sales of a product that somewhat, somehow was at some point in the distant past had some relation with a patented tool (patent that may have expired by the time you sell the product). In this case, one can imagine using SIBI's patented type of assay to get a lead compound. But it may take years to go from this to what may be a totally unrelated (chemically, at least) molecule that may make it into a product. OTOH, one can also argue that that's life in pharmaceutical development, and that the same case could be made against any tool or element (say, a gene sequence that one then uses to set up an assay to "fish out" potential small molecule drugs). Therefore, setting up arbitrary time limits on when royalties may be paid (say, none paid after the tool patent expires) would be unfair to the inventors of tools, given the nature of the field in which these tools are useful and used. Thus, such a position, time limits, would discourage such inventors from disclosing their methods. Going back to Cohen-Boyer, do the patent holders (Stanford et al.) stand to get royalties on EPO, insulin, etc. after expiration of the patent? Or, only products developed after such expiration would be free of royalties? Where is Ben Franklin when we need him? PB

To: margie who wrote (418)	6/25/1999 5:49:00 PM
From: scaram(o)uche	Respond to of 579

>> No. Sorry, it was an oversight, I did mean all patents, regardless of where they come from. << OK.... Cohen/Boyer, the patent on which all of biotech was founded. >> I thought or would think that what is in question is royalties if a new drug is discovered, using SIBI's technology. << It seems, to me, that 0.5% allows for a Board Room discussion about the merits of "expedience accorded a license, versus wisdom of trying to circumvent". I was trained in a pharma board room, watching a Wizard. I guarantee you, nobody in Pfizer's Board Room stood up and yelled "outrageous" when they heard 0.5%. >> 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? << Incredibly short-sighted. This could draw unwanted attention on a number of fronts. Wrong place to pick their "stand" against royalty stacking. PB.... no, I presume that Cohen/Boyer does not trickle down to small molecules. However, this is an assay designed for use in HTS, and Cohen/Boyer is to proteins as "629" is to small molecules. I don't feel that your question is "fair". Have a great weekend, all!