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 : Sepracor-Looks very promising -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jayhawk969 who wrote (4267)	3/9/2000 2:50:00 PM
From: Don Miller	Respond to of 10280

I am not the one to take a risk opinion from, but here are my two cents. 1. The FTC issue had no basis, and is harming both companies due to the length of time and the frivolous nature of the issue. I question if SEPR/LLY do not have a harm case. 2. One major brokerage house said it would clear without impact by the end of next Qtr. 3. Worst case should there be a surprise, SEPR owns the patent and could go it alone or with another partner, however not using the Claritin trademark.

To: jayhawk969 who wrote (4267)	3/9/2000 7:11:00 PM
From: Thomas M.	Respond to of 10280

One line of thought that is out there: If the FTC rules against SEPR, then it will put in to question SEPR's strategy of partnering with the "parent drug" manufacturer. In theory, this relationaship is ideal, because that company can transition over from the old product to the new & improved one more easily than another company rolling out a new product. Of course, in the case of Seldane/Allegra, HMR was too slow. That hurt Allegra and allowed Claritin to achieve market dominance. Tom