Mjmj, The perfect example is Gillead who own the Tamiflu patent. Even though Relenza had a head start over Tamiflu, Roche almost monopolised the antiviral market. Despite the near monopoly, Gillead wanted Roche to do more and launched a law suit against Roche. Gillead settled with Roche with an increased royalty percentage and even as of today, with the increasing H1N1 resistance to Tamiflu, Relenza is poorly marketed and failed to make any substantial market share.
In contrast, Biota sued GSK, GSK offered $100 million and agree to return the Relenza patent to Biota, PC refused offer and went onto to spend $30m in legal fees and then settled for $20m and rewarded himself. Biota appeared to have totally capitulated to GSK with no marketing efforts towards Relenza. GSK was using Relenza to sell GSK flu vaccine, masks and other related products as the One-stop shop marketing. Instead of pushing GSK to seriously market Relenza, PC told shareholders not to expect Relenza to be in the news.
Shareholders have to ask why Biota appeared not interested to inform the market on the success of Inavir. When Inavir was approved for sale in Japan, Biota announced it days after DS had informed the Tokyo Stock Exchange. When DS announced the maiden sale information to the Tokyo Stock Exchange, Biota announced it one day late and decisively failed to inform the market it is Inavirs maiden result and Inavir is a second generation antiviral.
All shareholders in this forum are excited about Inavir and LANI. It is so sad that we have to visit this share forum for news on Biota products because we cannot rely on PC to inform the ASX in a timely and accurate manner.
BTA Price at posting:
$1.29 Sentiment: LT Buy Disclosure: Held
