Frogman, you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel now. The operative word is "let?" Give me a break. I never said they "let it go" I said they "let it get away." There is a huge difference in meaning. If I am fishing and trying to land a fish, but it gets off the hook, I might say I let it get away. I wanted to catch it, but through my inadequacy I let it get away. If I catch the fish then release it I might say that I let it go.
So let's review. You said the only scenario that allows BIDMC to retrieve their license is if the licensee decided it wasn't worth the effort. Yet you admit that it is possible that they did not meet the terms of the license. You simply cannot imagine how to rationalize such a scenario. Why don't we look at the only third party evindence we have uncovered to date, the E blog. E states that the license was revoked because Pfizer sat on their butts and did nothing with the license. Is it that inconceivable to you that such a thing could happen?
There are any number of possible explanations none of which I have any evidence to support. I am just offering them up as possibilities. Maybe BIDMC went to Pfizer with the Super EPO and Pfizer said it wasn't really in their business plan as a target market or product, but the license fee was cheap, so why not buy it and sit on it. Maybe they will decide to pursue it later. Later BIDMC said they had breached the license agreement by sitting on it so Pfizer said okay take it back.
Or maybe Pfizer has a similar product in development that they feel is better than the Super EPO. They license the Super EPO and sit on it so as to eliminate a potential competitor. Even though they think the Super EPO is not as good they still believe it could cut into their market share especially if it goes to market sooner. When BIDMC says they breached the license agreement Pfizer says no we didn't and a fight ensues. The Harvard lawyers come to the rescue and Pfizer loses the license in closed door negotiations that cannot be found by a simple Google search.
Or maybe Pfizer's image was so bad with lawsuits over Viagra causing blindness, Lipitor causing problems with women over 65, Celbrex causing heart attacks, and Bextra being in the same class as Vioxx, that they just didn't think fighting Harvard for the license so they can shelve it would enhance their image to the public.
I don't know, it seems like there are several possible scenarios beyond the "only" scenario you think is possible or can be rationalized.
Virgil
