To: wildhart who wrote (1177 ) 5/16/2000 4:47:00 AM From: scott_jiminez Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 4474
By licensing specific uses of ARGENT, RAPID, and other FKBP-based small molecule inducible transcription systems. I'm sure you're aware that Ariad's vectors do more than present the capability of inducible expression: RAPID permits the regulation of the levels of expression...thus, for example, potentially avoiding the Gelsinger-type fiasco by allowing lower viral vector doses via a regulateable system. I'm sure you're also aware that all of Ariad's therapeutic vectors can be constructed to express Fas/FasL for immediate termination of expression of the vector products. I'm sure you read the Science/RAPID paper prior to asking your question. These vector constructs have obvious appeal for countless pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. Each company would pay Ariad a significant licensing fee when an Ariad-based product generated revenue. This has been discussed on this thread ad nauseum...as has the fact that the products are in use in over 300 research labs - a fact which presents the highly likely scenario of Ariad's products becoming essential components of many clinical trials. I'm sure you are also aware of Ariad's osteoporosis program and the PII that is currently in progress. If you feel all of this is a pathetic case of wishful thinking, perhaps you may find that self-fulfilling. However, I suggest you avoid the biotechnology sector altogether since prudent investors in these companies spend significant hours studying the raw research and the business plans...so they can figure out for themselves precisely how a company 'hopes' to profit from their patents. In fact, the SEC requires a company to present their 'hopes' to the public, at least once a year, in great detail. Extremely great detail. Actually wildhart, did you do ANY DD whatsoever?