I get the theory, but tend to disagree with BoredLaywer on this point. I can paint a very reasonable scenario where Pestell would be willing to "sell the test for pennies on the dollar" to CytoDyn from a purely self-interested perspective. Don't forget, he's now a significant owner of CytoDyn! Granted, he won't see all of the benefit of revenue from the test, or even close to all of it, but he'll get value from it nonetheless. But think of it this way:
1) He sells Prostagene to BP for the true value of the test, or licenses it. He has a boatload of money (amount TBD and not necessarily relevant), but still doesn't have a safe and effective CCR5 compound to advance his real work.
OR...
2) He agrees to "sell the test for pennies on the dollar" to CytoDyn, which he becomes a significant owner of in the process. He does this under the assumption that allowing CYDY to license the test and use the proceeds to develop/advance leronlimab in HIV (and cancer, GvHD, MS...) will result in him eventually making far more money than the prostate test alone ever would. Even as a minority owner. HIV revenue projections alone would probably allow that, nevermind the golden goose of cancer. Which he would know more about than anyone.
Put simply, I don't agree that it would necessarily be irrational from a self-interested viewpoint for Pestell to make the deal that he did instead of licensing or selling the test on his own via an independent Prostagene. That doesn't mean I'm correct, either. Just that I never saw the question of "why not go it alone if it's worth that much?" as a puzzle to be solved. I see it as begging the question "then, what must leronlimab be worth in his eyes?"
Saltz' information/inferences may very well be on point as well, but I'm not positive that added difficulty negates the logic here. It just means that maybe we limp along with a few more Paulson raises than we would if we could generate a good sum of money quickly through a license.
Good conversations today.
