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.

Non-Tech : Bill Wexler's Dog Pound -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mad2 who wrote (3679)	9/17/1999 5:35:00 PM
From: out_of_the_loop	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10293

We all know about the Watson suit. It was in the press before the Riverside paper picked it up - actually mentioned in the WSJ and several other places before. It is likely, based on what Kehoe said, that the first nic gum contract will be international. Why? Because gum has no ANDA as of now and he specifically said their goal was to have a major nic partner by the end of the year. In the meantime, the others can hash out the crap related "not" (Kevin those quotes indicate and expression and not a person's direct quote) to nicotine but to the packaging associated with it. The quotes indicate that of course I believe that SKB is just throwing up a smoke screen.

To: Mad2 who wrote (3679)	9/17/1999 7:00:00 PM
From: DanZ	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10293

Mad2, I'm aware of the story that you posted concerning SmithKline Beecham and Watson Pharmaceuticals. It has been discussed in good detail on Yahoo. One judge threw the case out and another found in favor of SmithKline. The thread on SI doesn't have a lot of action and many of the people who post on Yahoo aren't members of SI. I guess that's why it wasn't discussed on the GUMM thread here. SmithKline alleges in it's suit that Watson infringed on SKB's copyright for the audiocassette and instructions that accompany Watson's generic nicotine polacrilex gum. The suit is groundless IMO, because the FDA requires that the label and instructions that come with generic drugs be similar to their branded counterparts. You are correct that SmithKline is playing dirty, but the important thing from GumTech's standpoint is that this suit should be settled before GumTech and their partner begin selling gum in the U.S. Another point of interest is this quote from Elliot Wilbur, a pharmaceutical analyst at CIBC Oppenheimer: Wilbur said he believes the gum will generate, at best, sales of around $ 200 million and profits of $ 150 million over its lifetime. I'm not sure what the life cycle for nicotine gum is, but Watson said in a press release that they estimate their sales will be about $24 million per year. Based on this, I would guess that the life cycle is 8 to 10 years. Let's assume that GumTech attains a similar market share. If they earn $150 million over 10 years, they would have earnings of about $15 million per year. This is $1.50 per year based on 10 million shares outstanding, which is close, and even a little higher, than my estimate. Assuming that the number of shares outstanding increases over the next 10 years, and allowing for a margin of error, I think this data further validates my estimate of about $1.00 per year in earnings. To Mark L.: Thank you for your comments. Technically you are correct that I misquoted Mad2. However, the tone of his message, and previously statements that he has made, indicate that he does think GumTech is using Zicam to pump up its stock. I'm just guessing, but Mad2 might have worded it the way he did because he doesn't want to directly accuse the company of wrongdoing. At any rate, thank you for your comments. Your point is well taken. To those who "don't give a crap about gumm", and don't want it to be discussed here: You can't expect to have unbridled bash sessions about GumTech on this or any thread on the Internet. As I have said, if you all don't want me to post on this thread, then I respectfully request that you stop bashing the company with unsubstantiated comments. If you bash, I will post. If you post something that I disagree with, I will post. If you don't post about GUMM at all, I will not post. Thank you. A nice weekend to all. Dan