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 (1226)	6/23/2000 5:39:00 PM
From: scaram(o)uche	Respond to of 52153

>> Anyone else who knows about it care to comment? << I was rather intimate with the original GenPharm-CEGE conflict, and yet I don't have a clue. Pretty certain that IR at ABGX will tell you. Why wouldn't they give you a simple, straightforward answer? By osmosis, I have learned that MEDX has no rights to the ABGX improvements. Dunno, however, if I had my head in a bucket of liquid gold or pure p*ss. Being too close to MAbs, I've never caught this "they're magic" disease. Therefore have never owned either ABGX or MEDX. Oh, the pain.........

To: Biomaven who wrote (1226)	6/23/2000 6:23:00 PM
From: Pseudo Biologist	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 52153

In the category of "care to comment" (without knowing) ... Isn't it obvious? From your own citation: <<The cross-license agreement includes a worldwide royalty free cross-license to all issued and related patent applications pertaining to the generation of fully human monoclonal antibody technologies in genetically modified strains of mice. >> The cited patent was filed in 1995, so I don't see what the problem of interpretation could be here. BTW, the first inventor in this patent, Kucherlapati, is also one of the founders of MLNM. Always trying to tie up lines of discussion -g- PB