You can probably find more examples of corporate poor decisions than good. : )
Even so, in the HCV space The Gilead decision to pay so much for Pharmasett was not warmly embraced, yet now it is seen as genius.
I just saw; HCV....non hepatitis A, non hepatitis B is now 25 years old. 26 years ago they knew it existed, but did not know how to test for it, much less cure it. In a 6 years it has gone from about a 45% cure rate for g-1's to 95%+ for many groups.
I was in a HCV forum in 2003/2004 and the question was ....well....it wasn't a question; it was alleged that interferon could NOT cure genotype 1. In that forum no one really knew if it could be done. Rather, we knew, we read, but no one knew of a G-1 that had the papers, saying cured. People were knew that cleared were awaiting the 24 week SVR, and the most sensitive PCR was down to 600 IU/mL; so even if you were cured, that kind of sensitivity is not reassuring.
Point is, at the time it may have seemed unexpected.
In no way an I able to wade through patent law, but...like the McDonalds scalding coffee lawsuit, things that the public may feel about a case, morality, ethics, yadda yadda...... it may not matter.
What matters is if a company acted within the framework of the existing laws at the time, ticked all the boxes so to speak.
I'm not alleging they did or didn't. As much as anything I am playing the devils advocate here. Abbvie was called a troll in the article (which I thought was very even handed to the extent I can discern anything) and Gilead was made to look the abused party. Of course, the many replies to the article mention the magic computer, but I doubt most of them can read and understand the legal briefs. Without knowing what Abbott provided I think it a waste of time to assert opinion. (even then it is a waste of opinion unless you are trained in patent law, IMHO)
I'm just trying to imagine/convey the Abbvie response.
I'm just a layman and my opinion counts for zilch. : )
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
