Well apologies there dolce if I have somehow missed any of your points or did not adequately respond to them. I am but a mere mortal and much afeared of being told off for not thinking first.
in your first post you argued that they would not negotiate royalties without a final product;
and I've pointed out they are testing the final product for regulatory approval.
There is an implicit presumption in my thinking that I would acknowledge; that regulatory approvals would constrain the product to "as tested", i.e. not allowing chemistry changes (such as to add M&G) without further testing and approval. So happy to be enlightened on that by anyone who has a better understanding of the approvals constraints.
but now your second post argues materiality and that a balance between commercial in confidence and market disclosure would apply
------------
on the materiality:
You say "significant to the market ... that's a lot of interpretation".
So you would argue an Anteo contract with Philips for M&G to be used in the troponin test would not be significant? Interesting.
-----------
on the commercial in confidence argument:
Quoting the Continuous Disclosure Listing Rule, 3.1, all that is required is for the entity to be aware of "information that a reasonable person would expect to have a material effect on the price or value of the entity's securities".
And "a confidentiality agreement cannot prevent an entity from complying with it's obligations under the Listing Rules, ... in particular it's obligation to give ASX information for release to the market."
So the "balance between commercial in confidence and market disclosure" that you claim exists isn't apparent there. Maybe you could point me to where that is.
There are exceptions to Rule 3.1, all three of which would have to apply. I would not see the 3.1A exceptions applying if a final product agreement was in place. It would be legal, it would be complete, it would not be insufficiently definite (it's a definite contract and final regulatory approvals failure would be the only thing stopping it) and no trade secret would need to be disclosed.
And, as I originally posted, I would not expect Philips to go into final product regulatory approval testing without a contract with Anteo, if M&G was included. Think about it. Philips will have spent the best part of a year going through two stages of hospital testing. Let's say they get approval. Then is not a good time to open negotiations with those M&G guys about royalties.
ergo, I repeat, I don't see that Anteo can be part of the Philips final product testing currently taking place for regulatory approval.
-------------------
Now I am quite happy to be shown why, and if, my thinking is incorrect. But getting told to "think first before sounding off" didn't really change my thinking, thanks.
(20min delay)
