DNAprint Genomics (DNAG)

[frogdreaming]

Virgil, As I predicted you have changed your tune.

Way back in the thread regarding you promoted the concept of a legal battle and built your theory of Pfizers relinquishing of the license upon it.

I do not accept your dismissal of my theory until you show me some evidence that they did not have a legal battle,

Since then we have argued the 'logic' of obtaining evidence for something that never happened. You have 'agreed' that any such lawsuit would be on the public record and therefore the lack of any such record is sufficient to show that such a lawsuit never occured.

Now that we have established through the many google searches that you attempted that there was no lawsuit, you have modified your position;

I have never claimed there was a lawsuit.

A singularily obvious change of tune. lol

Now back to the matter at hand.

My quote;

The only scenario that allows BIDMC to retrieve their license is if the licensee decided it wasn't worth the effort.

Seems to upset you, even though you apparently agree with it.

We have your own quotes;

Is it possible that Pfizer saw value in the Super EPO and still let it get away?

Which implies that Pfizer made a conscious decision to allow the license to relapse after they had established it's apparent value to them.

Then we have;

Whatever the reason, you can bet that somehow it was in their financial best interest to shelve it.

Which states that the decision they made was a financial one.

So how can we resolve these statements, Pfizer new what it was worth to them......they made a financially beneficial decision.....and let the license go.

Fair enough, that's what I said, it was not worth the financial effort to Pfizer.

regards,
frog