John,
Actually, I gave a series of reasons why I think you are full of crap. I don't think this is a personal insult but rather a strongly opposing point of view. Now it would have been if I said you were an idiot, which I didn't then and am not saying now. Would you prefer that I say your arguments are full of crap and I question your motives and competence based on the arguments you post?
You raised a series of concerns about competitors that were not balanced by the negatives any putative competitors would have to encounter, many of which GTCB has already resolved by or is in the process of resolving. Such issues include;
1) the breadth of proteins that can be expressed by GTCB's platform, which one cannot assume any putative future competitor can match.
2) post-translational modifications such as glycosylation which favor GTCB in ADCC, which one cannot assume any putative future competitor can match.
3) the size of the market for proteins, which can easily accomodate multiple suppliers which could arise with putative future competitors.
4) proprietary proteins from GTCB.
5) the time frame and cost involved in the emeregence of putative future. If you are so worried about this last issue, you should be heavily shorting Google, Yahoo or Microsoft because competitors can rapidly emerge with minor cost to dominate search engines.
In short, you came down pretty negative on GTCB as a business model, in a large part based on the supposed emergence of some competitors. Yet you don't really understand the barriers and the inherent advantages of GTCB. Why don't you do a bit of reading and then come back? I find it annoying that you make grand pronouncements about the GTCB as a poor business model without the benefit of any reasonable background knowledge or even a hint at a balanced argument.
