$10 Billion Deal, page-1747

This view may have been valid in the 80's or 90's but is well beyond narrow in this day age.
Maybe your showing your age? Or maybe you just have a narrowed view of things and can not see very far into the future.
Who knows? BIT not receiving an investment would not be proof you were correct either.

Before I go on - and I have to ask this because the Patent card has been mentioned before. Do you really (and I mean honestly) think that if an organisation were to make a reasonable leap in our understand of science or medicine. No one would want to touch is, unless they could be the only ones that touch it?

Here's the reality.

1. Science and new discoveries are being developed at the fastest rate ever rate in human history.
2. Our discoveries and their design, development and deployment continue to are also occurring at record pace.
3. There are more people working on more scientific projects then ever before in human history.
4. They community as a whole, the scientific community is getting smarter and faster every day, rapidly.
5. In this day an age, Patents can often do more to stifle progress then enhance progress - at least in medicine.

Patents are a 17th century idea.
They came in to existence when began making some our greatest leaps in progress.
They were created to serve people willing to take on the sometimes enormous risks of creating human progress.

As Mal has suggested. Pharma may not wish to touch this science right now with only a limited window of protection to mitigate their rather large financial risks. And for whats it's worth it, it makes perfect sense and you can really evidence of this everywhere you look in the industry.

So why do I say he is wrong, or at least his idea is date and lacks the value it once had.
-Because a Patents inherent value is not that it protects the market place or an investment from new market place threats.
It's simply a reward for taking on risk.

And these protections, over time have turned to become a disabler of progress.

Mals view point, that "regardless" of the value of the need for intention in HIV or any value BIT may actually have - BIT having a limited Patent window means a deal won't come and we the world will just be, like, totally cool with that....

Bollock...

We are are on a trajectory, particularly in medical science - and I am not talking about drugs that give you boners - where developments that better our society as a whole by diminishing human suffering are breaking down the capitalist cages that hold them hostage.

It's happening. There is pressure in many countries and already ground swell at the international level.

Things won't change over night, but you can bet anyone Big Pharma business thinking about Patents and the science say 2027, when BIT's patent runs out - is also thinking about the future landscape of the world and how to best protect themselves...

And that is get in to the business of curing stuff and be first to the market.

Does this mean anything for BIT?
No bloody idea...

But it does mean the argument and non-patented science, even if it's good - is worthless.... which was a garbage argument even with out me having to explain why.