Quote: “BTA management has licenced to GSK. They may be...

Quote: “BTA management has licenced to GSK. They may be retstircted to comment on Relenza under the licence.. It could be up to GSK to force retraction. When you licence something you do not legally control it during the period of the licence. This was half the beef re the court case”
Quote: “hi prohet4me, You are totally right Biota has nothing and can nothing say regarding Relenza. They have signed over the rights for Relenza and hereby have no more control over this product.
A lot of posters here do not seem to understand the contractual agreement between Biota and GSK but to be putting it all in a nutshell, Biota has given now the rights about Relenza to GSK.
This includes everything that has to do with Relenza including promotions comments ect. If you want to get onto someone about Relenza it will be GSK.” End of Quotes


I have seen enough licensing agreements and I have never heard of a licensor restricted by contract or by common law from stating good things and truth about the licensed products. All you have to do is read the BTA documents and public announcements and you will see plenty of examples of BTA publishing facts about Relenza

Yes, licensor may be restricted from revealing trade secrets, manufacturing processes, marketing plans or matters that may affect the licensee’s rights or confidentialities. However there is absolutely no logic to restrict a licensor from publishing good things about the products, let alone correct wrong report about the products.

However, why should a licensor spend money promoting the products when the advertising costs will almost certainly far exceed the royalties from extra sales generated by the advertisements. (Unless the licensing agreement requires the licensor to promote the product). As a matter of fact, it was articulated extensively in the law suit that it is GSK’s responsibilities to promote and market Relenza. To imply inversely that this then prevents BTA from promoting Relenza is similar to Peter Cook blaming Peter Molloy for the financial losses of the cooked settlement of the law suit. (Need elaboration on the cooked settlement?)

Having said this, however, I do not expect a licensor to chase every rabbit (wrong statements) down the hole. In this internet age, there are millions of articles and journals published everyday and it is too much to expect a licensor or licensee to trawl through and correct every wrong statements.

Especially so with our beloved Peter Cook. He reported the wrong Relenza sales figures to the ASX and later corrected it and blamed GSK for revising the figures. It is a FACT GSK DID NOT revised the Relenza figures on GSK website. Relenza is BTA’s single most important income. Had Peter Cook visited the GSK website, would the mistake occur? (How do we know the idiot is mathematically challenged?? LOL) Peter Cook trawling the net for Relenza news? I don’t think he is paid enough to be that dedicated, is he?