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

To: Austin S. who wrote (1518)	1/20/2000 1:07:00 PM
From: ShortyBear	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1754

It appears that the investment community is very concerned about whether or not VISX can enforce its patents, the assumption is that the 75% market share and/or future revenue and profitability will be substantially reduced if the patents are not enforceable. I'd like to understand this better. Can somebody explain why VISX even needs to use patents to retain its market share? Microsoft doesn't appear to need to use patents to keep the market share of computer operating systems. Coke & Pepsi don't appear to need to use patents to keep their respective shares of the carbonated sugar water market. If VISX has developed the #1 leading brand, would that brand not be expected to prevail over the competition regardless of how many others are able to choose to participate in this industry? In the case of VISX, wouldn't doctors want to use a brand of equipment that their patients trust or else the patients will move elsewhere for fear of being blinded? And wouldn't patients trust the same brand of equipment that their friend who had the procedure before used? And isn't that brand about 75% likely to be VISX?