Frogman, from where I sit it looks like I have busted your game and you have resorted to trying to sucker me into a dopey bet to get me off the board thus allowing you to spread you unsupportable conclusions free of emcumbrances.
You recently stated that I claimed there was a lawsuit but all the evidence to that effect has vanished. Let me make one thing perfectly clear. I have never claimed there was a lawsuit. All I ever did was ask you, "What makes you so sure their wasn't a lawsuit?" You conclude there was no fight because I have found no evidence of one. Bear in mind that "fight" is not the same as "lawsuit." I was very clear in stating that it is possible that Pfizer did their best to fight losing the license. It is possible, dispite your protests that the omnipotent Pfizer can accomplish anything they choose to, that their best efforts at a fight did not produce a lawsuit or any other event that accomplished their goal.
Frogman, you have been posting since last year that the Super EPO must be worthless. You have suggested that that is the only reason why big pharma would let it get away. You have suggested that if Super EPO is so great, then big pharma certainly would see value in it and obtain it. What big pharma wants, big pharma gets, right? You have continued this line of thought with your latest claim which I will again repeat:
The only scenario that allows BIDMC to retrieve their license is if the licensee decided it wasn't worth the effort.
Followed by:
{b} Surely an entity with the finances and resources of a multi-national company could have strung the license along for as long as they wanted or in the worst case tied up the license in court for decades, even IF they didn't keep up their end of the license agreement. Why would they relinquish such a valuable resource when they didn't have to? They could have easily embarked on a legal battle (even in a cause they knew was doomed). The costs would have been trivial to them but onerous to the licenser. The appeals process would have guaranteed them several years of grace. Nope, I'm afraid this one bites the dust as well.
Face it, Frogman, this arguement does not hold water. First there are any number of reasons why they may have let something go without a fight. Perhaps they feared the bad publicity that could go with blocking the development of drug developed by Harvard. Please note, I am not claiming that this happened and I have no evidence to support it. I am simply offering it as one of many possible scenarios that blow holes in your claim. Perhaps they did try to fight but the legal team from Harvard blew them out of the water. For all we know with respect to the timing, Pfizer was able to fight it for a couple years (but not decades) and they ultimately failed in 2005.
Now would you care to admit that the statement The only scenario that allows BIDMC to retrieve their license is if the licensee decided it wasn't worth the effort. is unsupportable?
Virgil
AI
