Frogman, how are things on planet Frog? On planet Virgil we are trying to make sense of your last communication. Several items do not make any sense at all.
Way back in the thread regarding you promoted the concept of a legal battle and built your theory of Pfizers relinquishing of the license upon it.
I offered this as one theory. You said if Pfizer had wanted to they could have tied this thing up in the courts. I saw no reason to believe that they hadn't tried (which is different than saying they did). Your reasoning was that Pfizer is so all powerful that they could have tied it up if they wanted to, and since they didn't tie it up therefore they most certainly must have not wanted to. I say that arguement does not hold water since it is possible they tried to tie it up but failed. We are dealing with Harvard here, afterall.
Now that we have established through the many google searches that you attempted that there was no lawsuit, you have modified your position
I did one short Google search several days ago to see how many hits I would get. Nothing more than that has been "established." As I have said, all that matters is that it is possible that they fought and lost, whether that "fight" made it to court or not is immaterial.
The only scenario that allows BIDMC to retrieve their license is if the licensee decided it wasn't worth the effort.
Seems to upset you, even though you apparently agree with it.
Earth to planet Frog. The whole basis of this arguement is that I do not agree with that statement.
Virgil: Is it possible that Pfizer saw value in the Super EPO and still let it get away?
Frog: Which implies that Pfizer made a conscious decision to allow the license to relapse after they had established it's apparent value to them.
That is the all-time worst conclusion you have ever made from something I posted! Nonsense! It implies that Pfizer may have thought the Super EPO had value, yet despite their best efforts to keep it, and keep it on the shelf, they still lost the fight to keep it.
Whatever the reason, you can bet that somehow it was in their financial best interest to shelve it.
Which states that the decision they made was a financial one.
So how can we resolve these statements, Pfizer new what it was worth to them......they made a financially beneficial decision.....and let the license go.
Fair enough, that's what I said, it was not worth the financial effort to Pfizer.
We look at it differently here on Planet Virgil. Pfizer made a financially beneficial decision to shelve the product...they knew what it was worth to them...they lost their fight to keep the license.
That's what I'm saying.
Now back to the matter at hand. Can you support this statement?
The only scenario that allows BIDMC to retrieve their license is if the licensee decided it wasn't worth the effort.
I'll make it simple. Is it possible that Pfizer did not meet the terms of the license, in which case BIDMC had the right to revoke the license, and exercised that right? And furthermore, is it possible that whatever recourse Pfizer took to prevent the revocation of the license failed, thus allowing the license to go to DANPrint?
Virgil
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
