Replies to post #129539 on Biotech Values

[orangeone]

Thanks Iwfal. Sounds reasonable...My concern was that somehow that even if they maintain exisitng market share, an AG must somehow offer a lower pricing (which Sandoz will have to match), otherwise what is the point of having two products, neither of which is supported by any marketing? (or is there still some residual marketing with the brand?) I agree a natural equilibrium should result if Ampha does not arrive, and I would otherwise be happy in principle if Sanofi is signalling threats to Ampha, if Mnta were not just a bystander in the economics of all this.

Thanks a lot for postings regarding the suit. Interesting reading for me (you are right i am a patent atty, but a European one). Looking fwd to exchanging thoughts on all this...

Cheers,

[Rocky3]

a) Ampha does not come on the market then Sandoz will remain near 50% market share - because two players can tacitly settle on a fair market share via signaling etc.

I don't get this assumption. Aren't you saying S/A won't sell ANY generic? Isn't their goal to get a fair share (50%?) of the gerenic market? With little difference in price, that would give them 75% of the entire market. Maybe they keep the price the same in order to keep the Lov 50%. If price starts to go down, they have shot themselves in the foot overall, but not they are still better off than not having a AG.

Please correct rationale.