|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Oct 1, 2014 17:00:13 GMT -5
Simple question, how can it be legal to tell one side of the story and not the other? Very simple answer. The most straightforward confidentiality terms that are often the ones included in deals state that any public release must be approved by both companies. The exact content of release often is not discussed in the deal negotiation, simply the principal that both parties must agree. Usually they then agree on press releases and presentations and any verbal comments are expected to go no further than clarifying the points that were agreed to go into the written material. SNY may well not want any info about marketing budgets, strategies or timelines divulged to competitors... in fact this was basically hinted at in the calls. The most common and straightforward confidentiality clause would have given them the right to say no to releasing these details. You seem to treat MNKD as having given up something in agreeing to the release of the info about the milestone payments, and yet I think you are in the minority in this regard. I think MNKD wanted that info to be released and SNY would have no reason to veto it. I've negotiated many a deal in my life and almost none give carte blanche to talk about the specifics without approval of the other side. What is happening here seems very consistent with my experience in business and how such confidentiality obligations might play out. Disclaimer -- What do I know, I'm a lizard.
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Oct 1, 2014 17:21:44 GMT -5
I cannot figure out how they managed to "muzzle" Al, though (chuckle). I do agree that there are ways to publicly state company activities without violating confidentiality agreements. Matt has always been straightforward with me when he replies to my email inquiries, and readily says there are certain items he is "forbidden" from discussing. That could mean Sanofi, who has been given control of marketing, also has control of what information gets disclosed.
In the same manner, public discussions of other partnerships in the works may be restricted due to confidentiality agreements. I've said it before that if it weren't for the requisite applications for patents and trial applications, which by law must be accessible by the public, we probably wouldn't have the slightest idea of the companies MannKind is currently planning or engaged with in other Technosphere-drug development projects.
It's frustrating, this need for secrecy. But drugs are BIG money. Sometimes the secrecy is warranted.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Oct 1, 2014 17:30:56 GMT -5
In my field of work quite often companies license technology and don't even allow the fact that they are licensing to be talked about. They have the market and in front of their customers they want to pretend they invent everything in house. This occurs even when there are tell tale signs that someone could figure it out if they really look at details of products. Big money, small money, drugs or otherwise, secrecy in business seems to be the default rather than the exception. In fact it probably is even more prevalent with non public companies.
|
|