Merovingian,
I appreciate your posts and I agree with you that, if Abbott has factual proof that RECAF technology can deliver the goods, they would love to own all of it. But that isn't likely to happen, in my opinion, for several reasons. First, buying 100% of the RECAF technology is effectively buying the whole company. The BOCX stock price is just too low, even if there is a premium paid over the current stock price, for management to sell the company. Second, BOCX estimates that the potential RECAF market size is in excess of one billion a year. That means that RECAF could be a "blockbuster." Ten percent royalties would give BOCX about 100 million a year, until the patents run out, with no expenses to earn that revenue. Therefore, royalties are much more likely. Here is an example of what actually happened concerning a blockbuster drug. Pfizer licensed the blockbuster, systemic antibiotic called "Zithromax" years ago from a Croatian pharmaceutical company called Pliva. Before the antibiotic went off patent last November, Pfizer's Zithromax sales were about 2.5 billion annually. Pliva was receiving about 150 million a year of that in royalties. It should also be noted that Pliva must have made their deal for about 6% royalties, years ago. Standard royalties are generally higher now depending on what stage the partner takes over the product. BOCX management has stated that 100 million in royalties a year would be equivalent to gross sales of 650 million a year when all costs of marketing are considered with no investment involved. So BOCX management seems to be essentially telling us that they plan to go with royalties.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
