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 : ArQule -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tommysdad who wrote (371)	7/28/1999 9:36:00 PM
From: John Dwyer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 399

You wrote: Even if the SEPR patent is bogus, who is going to fight it? _____ Any other big pharma who competes with the ICE drug. I'm worried that as soon as some of these big- market ICE compounds start hitting the market, the competition will cry "foul" and it will end up in court. Ugly court fights with injunctions against selling product are bad news. The FTC is also lurking although I see them as less of a threat. Anyhow, this stuff has been beaten to death on the SEPR thread. Your point is taken on the apple and orange stuff.

To: tommysdad who wrote (371)	8/2/1999 8:11:00 PM
From: Herc	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 399

'Splain it to me. SEPR goes in and slightly alters a known drugs molecule so that it will have less side effects and can be patented for however many years are allowed for a new drug? But can't the generic drug companies undercut their price with the old compound now off patent? It's not like SEPR is creating whole new classes of drugs. I'm an ophthalmologist and can tell you that most people don't suffer side effects from drugs. Otherwise the drug would have never been released in the first place if the hazards outweighed the benefits. Keeping the ARQL thread alive... Herc