A suspect post I agree, most of which has been well covered by...

A suspect post I agree, most of which has been well covered by company presentations and by discussion here:

Some simple thoughts:

Upfront costs to change manufacturing processes might be high but ongoing savings are potentially enormous through simplification of process, reduction in raw materials (eg expensive antibody), increased stability and increased shelf life/better tolerance of temperature, less batch variability (consistent M&G surfaces/antibody orientation).

Products will perform much better and therefore be more valuable and enable defense/expansion of market share

New products/markets will be possible and valuable, BBI for instance has a thriving business in designing/producing new assays for customers from scratch for boutique/niche markets.

Cost of M&G in absolute terms is very low, cost extracted by company will be pragmatic, GC is not going to kill the company by asking for unreasonable royalties, for the first few deals they might even be a bit lower to lock in company viability and future. For exclusive access they might be higher.

If M&G makes the impossible possible (bedside best in class/equivalent to central lab troponin testing), and opens up/dominates a market how do you put a price on that?

At best your post is naive and not abreast of the facts (you obviously haven't understood what has been put in the public domain these past few years), at worst it's an ill considered and slightly pathetic/desperate attempt to put confusion/doubt in the minds of retail punters following these threads...