DNAprint Genomics (DNAG)

[frogdreaming]

Virgil, The operative word here is 'let'. Pfizer 'let' it go.

In your own words they 'let' it go because it was financially beneficial to do so.

There is no financial benefit in allowing a multi-billion dollar drug license to revert to it's owner.

Now back to the matter at hand. Can you support this statement?

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

The statement has been supported several times. It is you who have failed to imagine a scenario that does not also support it.

Here is a reincarnation of a prior attempt, previously abandoned but now re-instated.

I'll make it simple. Is it possible that Pfizer did not meet the terms of the license, in which case BIDMC had the right to revoke the license,...

Of course it is. How would you like to rationalize such a scenario, ...Pfizer couldn't afford the license fee? .....They couldn't meet the drug development milestones?.....What? Were there obstacles they could not overcome?... Did they not know how to do it?....What? Where they just stupid and lazy?

Tell us.

I say that arguement does not hold water since it is possible they tried to tie it up but failed.

Then where is the evidence of the attempt?

Before a judge can review a legal action and 'reject' it , it has to be filed. Even a failed legal action would leave a trail. A filing, a ruling, a possible appeal, all would be public record. It is a fantasy to suggest that any effort took place without leaving evidence. So it is NOT possible that they 'tried and failed' only that they didn't try.

So we revert to the fact that they 'let' it go without a fight, after they established it's value and made a decision based on their own financial best interest.

If you cannot provide a scenario that contradicts these quotes of yours then let us put the discussion to rest. You have just about run out of room to maneuver.

regards,
frog