Hypothetically speaking. If you had recaf technology that did everything Biocurex said it would, would you take 8 million up front with 5% royalty on revenues, or 200K along with 15% royalties.
Keep in mind that this is Biocurex's first licensee. It was important for Biocurex to land Abbott, which gives the recaf major credibility. Now, consider this, Biocurex makes a major concession by accepting only 200K in exchange for a fairly high royalty percentage. That would be very enticing for Abbott, given the promise the technology demonstrated during their due dilligence, while accomplishing Biocurex's goal of announcing a major licensing deal with the world's largest cancer diagnostic pharma, backing and developing the technology. Biocurex knew they had to give up some "ass", given they are a tiny start up company signing a behemoth like Abbott.
Biocurex is in the driver's seat regarding exclusive rights vs. non-exclusive rights! If Abbott wanted to get their hands on the technology, they would have to play ball, or watch the tech get developed by another pharma. You are naive if you can't see how not giving Abbott exclusive rights will create competition and a sense of urgency in getting this technology to market. Abbott probably would not have sat on the technology, but can you blame Biocurex for ensuring that, that will not be the case? The sooner a recaf product hits the market, the sooner the company will start realizing revenues!
