|
Post by gonetotown on Sept 30, 2016 17:34:46 GMT -5
"Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate," Used to have that posted over the chemistry lab in high school. Ditto the quantitative chemistry lab in college -- deservedly so too.
|
|
|
Post by nadathing on Sept 30, 2016 17:39:54 GMT -5
Scripts down week ending 9/23 can't wait to hear the plethora of excuses. Most diabetic nimrods were on vacation last week. I took the week off from being diabetic and ate ice cream every day. I think it was National Binge Week.
|
|
|
Post by gonetotown on Sept 30, 2016 17:42:51 GMT -5
Maybe not, but everytime I look at MNKD the phrase, "Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate," seems to flash across the screen. Which circle have you reached? None yet! I'm afraid of dogs and not all that confident in those chains on Cerberus:
|
|
|
Post by op2778 on Sept 30, 2016 18:12:02 GMT -5
Well, i'm italian and can tell you that Dante loved Beatrice, but, a lot of people says that Beatrice never existed. Boccaccio made jokes about that after Dante death.... It's Afrezza like Beatrice? Will really exist or will remembered like Exubera and Beatrice? Op Which circle have you reached? None yet! I'm afraid of dogs and not all that confident in those chains on Cerberus:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2016 23:59:00 GMT -5
The value of the patents, is large. ? The value of any patent, by itself, is zero. If the inventor has a highly successful new product, a patent protects the market from competition for the life of the patent, and in that case the patent has great economic value. If the new product is a failure, the patent is worthless because it protects a commercial market that does not exist. Ultimately, the value of the product determines the value of the patent and not the other way around. I disagree. You are assessing, specifically, MannKind's patents protecting Afrezza using a market valuation only. Things go a lot deeper than just a market valuation, especially if there is not a product on the market. Afrezza was invented based on the Technosphere patent which, currently, far surpasses just insulin. You are completely neglecting valuations based on breakthroughs. These kinds of patents can have a value that equals hundreds of millions even into the billions. The nice thing about MannKind is, they have meshed Technosphere into majority of their patents, especially some of their most innovative ones. Which makes just Technosphere alone extremely valuable because they are able to demonstrate the extreme versatility of it, regardless of Afrezza’s success or failure. Technosphere isn't just a dry powder, it can be formed into many different mediums and is a world class innovative carrier for drug delivery. Here are some examples of MannKind patents of which no products are currently in the marketplace: — Methods and compositions for treating pain patents.justia.com/patent/9233159— HEAT-STABLE DRY POWDER PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS patents.justia.com/patent/20160158156— INHALABLE VACCINE COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS patents.justia.com/patent/20150283069— METHOD AND COMPOSITION FOR TREATING MIGRAINES patents.justia.com/patent/20140315953— Monoclonal antibodies and diagnostic uses thereof patents.justia.com/patent/9410957— IRE-1α inhibitors patents.justia.com/patent/9241942These are not worthless.
|
|
|
Post by lakon on Oct 1, 2016 4:10:18 GMT -5
The value of any patent, by itself, is zero. If the inventor has a highly successful new product, a patent protects the market from competition for the life of the patent, and in that case the patent has great economic value. If the new product is a failure, the patent is worthless because it protects a commercial market that does not exist. Ultimately, the value of the product determines the value of the patent and not the other way around. I disagree. You are assessing, specifically, MannKind's patents protecting Afrezza using a market valuation only. Things go a lot deeper than just a market valuation, especially if there is not a product on the market. Afrezza was invented based on the Technosphere patent which, currently, far surpasses just insulin. You are completely neglecting valuations based on breakthroughs. These kinds of patents can have a value that equals hundreds of millions even into the billions. The nice thing about MannKind is, they have meshed Technosphere into majority of their patents, especially some of their most innovative ones. Which makes just Technosphere alone extremely valuable because they are able to demonstrate the extreme versatility of it, regardless of Afrezza’s success or failure. Technosphere isn't just a dry powder, it can be formed into many different mediums and is a world class innovative carrier for drug delivery. Here are some examples of MannKind patents of which no products are currently in the marketplace: — Methods and compositions for treating pain patents.justia.com/patent/9233159— HEAT-STABLE DRY POWDER PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS patents.justia.com/patent/20160158156— INHALABLE VACCINE COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS patents.justia.com/patent/20150283069— METHOD AND COMPOSITION FOR TREATING MIGRAINES patents.justia.com/patent/20140315953— Monoclonal antibodies and diagnostic uses thereof patents.justia.com/patent/9410957— IRE-1α inhibitors patents.justia.com/patent/9241942These are not worthless.I agree, but they are difficult to value. I say, "1 TRILLION DOLLARS," but alas, opinions vary.
|
|
|
Post by bioexec25 on Oct 1, 2016 4:43:59 GMT -5
Mango, what about the patents that protect the process & methods related directly to TS. Wouldn't think that is worth zero either.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Oct 1, 2016 7:52:09 GMT -5
Patents for undeveloped products are valued the same way as for developed products. The only value of a patent is to exclude competitors from the market, presently or in the future, so by paying anything for a patent you are making a bet that A) a lucrative market for the patent will develop, B) that the patent is legally valid and cannot by bypassed with clever engineering, and C) that you will be successful in making the product.
There are examples where somebody paid dearly for a potential market, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. Pfizer bought Wyeth for a number of reasons, but mostly it was to get control of a drug then in development that would later become Lipitor. Great bet, they made out like bandits. As Lipitor approached patent expiration, Pfizer bought another patent for a new generation of cholesterol therapy, from the exact same scientists that invented Lipitor, and that bet turned into a $1.1 billion write-off of Experion Therapeutics. Experion is still around, but is a reboot of its former self; Pfizer is long gone.
Technosphere is a drug delivery technology looking for a drug to deliver. There are MANY drug delivery technologies out there, Alza was a multi-billion company that did nothing but develop drug delivery methods, but the trick is forming a marriage between a drug that needs a better delivery method and an ideal method that will still have valid patent claims by the time the drug is approved. If MNKD finds one of those, Technosphere will have value.
The biggest risk in pharma is that there is another way to do something that does not violate still valid patent claims. I am presently negotiating a license to a small molecule from a "Big Pharma" for a particular purpose. If they want to play ball, I am happy to pay them a modest royalty because they have done a lot of work characterizing the molecule and I won't have to take the time or spend the money on duplicating the safety tests. If not, I know at least two places I can go to obtain similar molecules, one with an expired patent and one that had their patent denied as not being novel. The fact that I have alternatives will determine how much I am willing pay the "Big Pharma" for a license.
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Oct 3, 2016 8:10:29 GMT -5
I suspect that most ProBoard-MNKD members have a different perspective on this thread topic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2016 8:30:39 GMT -5
I suspect that most ProBoard-MNKD members have a different perspective on this thread topic.
Looks like they are both screwed
|
|
|
Post by kball on Oct 3, 2016 8:43:45 GMT -5
I suspect that most ProBoard-MNKD members have a different perspective on this thread topic.
A 3rd panel should have land guy leaving on boat as boat guy waves from land
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Oct 3, 2016 9:15:25 GMT -5
So grab your color crayons and have at it, champ!
|
|
|
Post by wmdhunt on Oct 3, 2016 9:54:00 GMT -5
You might label one guy MNKD and the other RLS. But we don't even know who RLS is or what their plans are/aren't.
|
|
|
Post by qwertqwert on Oct 3, 2016 9:58:36 GMT -5
Here you go!
|
|
|
Post by kball on Oct 3, 2016 10:17:04 GMT -5
Land Guy Now in Boat: HEY, toss me that sunscreen
|
|