Merovingian, I have one more thought about your "single-licensee" theory.
As Biocurex has pointed out in its news releases, licensees tend typically want exclusive agreements. The implication is that Abbott would have wanted an exclusive agreement, but couldn't get Biocurex to agree to one. This, in turn, implies that Biocurex expected other parties to be interested in the technology, and would sign on.
The question all of this raises is: Why would Biocurex management want to go with an exclusive agreement with Abbott now, after having eschewed it before? Presumably, the technology is being shown to be very strong and viable, so one would expect more potential licensees to want to sign on, and there would be even less incentive to accept an exclusive agreement with Abbott. Thus, in order to override the competition, Abbott would have to offer very favourable terms.
If the technology is strong, then either there will be more licensing agreements, or as you suggest, Abbott will try to get exclusivity. But they would probably have to offer an EXTREMELY good deal to Biocurex, in order to get them to accept exclusivity.
Perhaps
