Frogman, I believe that Pfizer licensed the original EPO and sat on it. We don't know for sure why they sat on it, but it seems most probable that they sat on it to keep it off the market. You said this is unlikely because with their resources they surely would have been able to tie it up in a legal battle if they wanted to. I say, how do we know they didn't attempt a legal battle? Since we do not have details on how they breached the contract to allow BIDMC to revoke the license, we have no idea as to the strength of Pfizer's case. If they wanted to keep it off the market, I am sure they looked at their legal options. My point is we do not know what happened as a result of Pfizer persuing their legal options. Perhaps they decided their case was so weak that they didn't even try. Perhaps they did make a case and it ultimately failed. Your arguement that I do not accept is that Pfizer is so big and powerful that if they really wanted to keep the Super EPO off the market then they would surely succeed.
If I have a list of 10 names and I claim that the name "Frogdreaming" is not on the list. I think I can prove that "Frogdreaming" is not on the list of ten names by showing that each of the 10 names is not "Frogdreaming." In the same way, if I have a list of all the court cases in the history of the world and I show that none of them are Pfizer vs BIDMC, then I think I have proven that there was never such a law suit that went to court. If I can prove this under these circumstances and it is true that you cannot prove a negative, then logically, one would have to conclude that "Pfizer and BIDMC never had a law suit" is not a "negative" as defined by the law "you cannot prove a negative."
Virgil
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
