GFP, neuro and others; I can understand the different possibilities that have been discussed for deals but could this process be significant impaired by our desire and corcentric view
Is it actually feasible to ink a deal where one compound can be given rights for one indication but rights for other areas of target indications for that same compound to be kept to Cortex.
I might assume a delay in finalizing a deal may come from the complexity of how many indications might one ampakine compound be viable for and for that, what %royality for all of those considerations would be appropriate.
Also, if low-impact compound x is ready for dealing but low-impacts 2x and 4x are around the corner and will have the same target indications but with likely better potency and maybe better results, then why would a company finalize a deal just for compound x when a competitor can finalize a deal for 2x or 4x and obtain the best in class or why would they finalize a deal for compound x and or 2x when that gives Cortex an ability to come out with compound 4x and end up with the best in class.
Maybe I am thinking this way because I am thinking that ampakines have a low-impact and a high-impact variability; but beyond those two categories how much variability is there. Not potency but variability. Is there variability with new low-impact compounds for the mech of action and pharmacodynamics to change.
Now maybe changing names from CX-xxx, xx1, to more independendly associated names for each compound would promote ease of splitting up different low impacts
What cortex probably needs is to find the best partner who would be able to increase the cortex royalities depending on the viability and progress of the low-impact compounds.
This would allow Cortex to partner the low-impacts and develop pet uses +high-impacts for sole Cortex use or until deemed fit to partner the high-impacts/other.
