InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 10
Posts 4220
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 07/10/2003

Re: Virgil Hilts post# 48622

Wednesday, 07/19/2006 6:59:37 PM

Wednesday, July 19, 2006 6:59:37 PM

Post# of 82595
Virgil, I said;

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

I stand by it.

Every scenario you stated supports the statement.

Yet you admit that it is possible that they did not meet the terms of the license.

Unless there were obstacles that prevented Pfizer from meeting the terms of the license, then any failure to meet those terms would be a voluntary choice and support my statement that they did not consider it worth the effort. There is also the possibility of abject stupidity. (But even you have dismissed that option.)

...the license was revoked because Pfizer sat on their butts and did nothing with the license.

The violation of the license terms for a multi-billion dollar drug under such conditions would be either voluntary or stupid. If voluntary, it supports my claim, if stupid well...you know.

...and Pfizer said it wasn't really in their business plan as a target market or product,..

That's a good one. What business plan does a global pharmaceutical mega-corporation have that doesn't include multi-billion dollar slam dunk drugs? Nevertheless if they chose not to pursue it for business reasons it supports my claim. Stupid? lol

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...

Again we get to the concept of 'shelving' a multi-billion dollar drug. Do you have any 'scenario' that supports such a fantasy? It seems to me that the nonsense spewed in that last quote would make them more than interested in a 'slam dunk' drug to help improve their image. However, if they decided not to pursue the license in order to protect their image, then they did not think it worth the effort, and supports my claim.

I don't know, it seems like there are several possible scenarios beyond the "only" scenario you think is possible or can be rationalized.

Well then, let's hear one that makes sense.

regards,
frog