To: biao luo who wrote (3179 ) 12/7/1997 7:04:00 AM From: sam Read Replies (2) | Respond to
biau luo: It is true that AGPH did license the compound that later became Viracept from Eli Lilly. However, your implication that Lilly "discovered" Viracept, and that AGPH's research team is therefore weak may be false. Here's my take on why. From 1988 till 1994, AGPH and LLY worked together in trying to find a cure for AIDS, a venture LLY abandoned in 1994. How the relationship was structured, and why, I can't tell you without reading the contracts themselves. And understanding the relationship between mammouth LLY and small fry AGPH in 1988. But I suspect that LLY's "ownership" over the compound in 1994, and AGPH's license of it from LLY were conditions set forth contractually to protect the parties as they then saw fit. Others more knowledgable than I may be able to comment on this (and on why LLY left the venture entirely). However, this much seems clear. Scientists from both companies, working together, discovered several novel, potent chemical compounds (salts) through structure-based drug design (AGPH's core technology) that could prevent proviral integration of infected T-lymphocytes during early stages of the HIV life cycle as well as inhibit viral-proteolytic processing during later stages (i.e. inhibit or block the HIV protease). I urge you (if you haven't done so already) to read the HIV-related patents assigned to both companies to get a feel for just how consolidated this endeavor really was. AGPH scientists appear on LLY patents and LLY scientists on AGPH patents. If anyone else can shed light on this issue, please do!
