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 : Immunomedics (IMMU) - moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: CelebrityEquity who wrote (45892)	4/24/2018 1:20:03 PM
From: Fitzhughlaw	7 Recommendations Recommended By CelebrityEquity corndog erickerickson erippetoe jargonweary and 2 more members Respond to of 63284

No, most, but not all of it. However, as you can see from how Mr. Ranch's post was far more erudite and elucidating than mine (and which I know was likely done completely from his memory), it's his turn to wear the tin foil hat these days, and thus the greater knowledge he was able to bring to bear on the subject. On a serious note, I don't know for sure, but I think the recent Scripps licensing agreement was us dodging a serious bullet, because it had to involve a dispute over the linker's patent rights. I know that I have weighed in on this before so my apologies for restating it again here, but SN38 has been around for years and the antibody patent expired in 2017, so I infer that the linker had to be what drove that transaction. Thank goodness it didn't blow up in our faces.