% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.


  • mclarence89 mclarence89 Jun 24, 2010 9:50 AM Flag

    Giving away the store?

    We gave ACTCellerate to BTIM and now we help ISCO with this latest patent. Notice on the licensee PR's no mention on how much ISCO is paying us for this "Gift"? Seems like it would have been wiser to keep the patent close to the vest, develop the eye saving business and then when we're way out in front of everyone let them have a few crumbs after we're successful.What's to keep ISCO to pony up with a big pharma and with this license have the rapid funding to leap ahead of ACTC? Anybody out there thought about this?

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Hmmmm

      Sentiment: Strong Sell

    • Most of these shared licensing agreements go both ways. They get our current technology, and we get a license to their improvements on our technology. That's how I recall the agreements I've read in the past. So we get the benefit of their R&D $$ for our technologies.

      Now if you have other companies working to improve your technology, and you get the benefit of their improvements - instead of finding a way around your patent - that may cement other kinds of advantages in your favor. This is often how technology works.

      I won't claim I think it is the best. Obviously, if they could have raised more money during those idiot Bush years, we'd be in better shape. But the other downside in this technology is holding onto the patents so tightly that no one can license, and then no one can develop the technology. That's the other side of this. We have licenses to major patents as well, and if we did not have many of those licenses, we would not be able to be fully in this field. That's how this field has apparently worked.

      In some of the licenses, ocmpetitors have to carve-out developing the technology in a non-competitive field. So the license should be reviewed more fully before people conclude that they understand exactly what ISCO's rights are, and what ACTC may have given or not given away.

    • Thats your way of answering the facts here as the biggest ACTC pumper. Are you saying you made a new ID to bash today? Or do you like this deal with the cap of under 2 million to ACTC and that's a long way off. Good play if you get some lower to flip a few.

      Even stranger thing is that you have a new ID and are a fishman LOL LOL LOL

    • It appears on the surface to be a bad deal BUT we do not have any of the details so I can't call it a bad deal until we know everything. All we see here is that Lanza works for years in the lab for this patent and along comes ISCO and says how about sharing with us. We'll give you practically nothing for it because we want some of those billions. It seems to me that we are constantly over the years helping out other stem cell companies. Who has helped us? Are we really that desperate for money? I'm waiting to see the details (if we ever do) of this move.

    • Even stranger thing is that you have a new ID and are a fishman LOL LOL LOL

    • Glad I did not buy last week. It is strange how longs will not acknowledge that it's a bad deal.

    • yes mclarence, but you also keep your friends close and your enemies closer! jmo

    • Well you have to care when you help your competition out. A good businessman always keeps key things in his business close to the vest. You give away your secrets(patents in this case) you can be cutting your own throat down the road. We'll see what unfolds.

    • I heard Caldwell is taking over BP.

    • He's spending it all on TEH strippers !!!!!!!!

    • View More Messages