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 : Biotech Valuation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Biomaven who wrote (720)	2/25/2000 2:00:00 PM
From: Pseudo Biologist	Respond to of 52153

Peter, are you questioning the (methodology used by the) MIT geniuses? Shame on you. -g- Actually, this is the kind of methodology used to rank quantity and quality of academic output; so-called citation analysis. Just use publications instead of patents and everything else is pretty much the same. One element of "controversy" is the issue of self-citation. In the academic world, there are studies that correct for this, and results sometimes change quite dramatically. Bet ISIP benefited from self-citation (who else does care about antisense, really??). Xoma probably not; I think other people tend to cite Xoma's patents often, particularly those dealing with methods for antibody production and the like. PB

To: Biomaven who wrote (720)	2/25/2000 2:12:00 PM
From: aknahow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 52153

Peter, is it not possible that WLa, lost a bunch of points due to the 2B factor? "2B" as in any company dumb enough to agree to a $2 billion breakup agreement, is not that smart, no matter how many patents they have! Don't know if that is why others scored higher, but could be. Seriously I thought the patent citation weighting was an interesting approach. If you patent something and no one cares have you really discovered anything?