Skip to main content
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 3
What do these have to do with each other? Good question.

When Tinker originally posted about Abgenix and Mederex,
the naysayers seemed to have won the day. But why?
The argument was that when a government agency has control over the adoption of a technology, this could not be a situation conducive to the formation of a gorilla game. But what is it that people think the mandate of the FDA is?

They are an agency who's job it is to make sure drugs are safe and effective BEFORE THEY ARE BROUGHT TO MARKET. There is no political consideration in this process per se. If two companies are testing similar drugs or processes, there is no CHOICE to be made between the two, BOTH may be approved. There is no
reason to believe that a drug that is proven safe and effective WILL NOT be brought to market.

In a recent post I compared the situation with ABGX and MEDX to that of Qualcomm. But who really has the greater impediment to adoption? Qualcomm has been crowned by many as the gorilla of CDMA within the overall technology adoption life cycle of wireless telephony.
You may say they are two different cycles, but are they?

Apple is undoubtedly the gorilla of the Mac OS technology adoption life cycle, but does that make them the gorilla of the PC TALC? Hardly.

Then you could argue that Qualcomms intellectual property is crucial to every version of 3G implementation within the wireless TALC, but then look at Apples firewire. It isn't crucial to the PC TALC up until now, but neither was Qualcomms CDMA crucial to the
adoption of wireless telephony up until now.

Going forward, however, firewire HAS BEEN ADOPTED as the standard interface between computers and electronic devices. It is game over, IMHO. But what does that do for Apple? Not much, so far. Arguments against the similarity between these two situations are about degree, not substance.

So, are the forces lined up against Qualcomm greater than, or less than those lined up against ABGX and MEDX?
I will argue that if Qualcomm had only to prove the effectiveness and greater utility to an uninvolved third party government body, it would have been decided from the beginning in Qualcomms favor, and hence, game over.
No one here has argued that Qualcomms technology is the lesser.

Qualcomm, like Apple, could STILL end up being the gorilla of CDMA but the CHIMP of wireless telephony.
None of us knows what's going to happen tomorrow let alone in a year or two.

And now that the FDA has fast-track authority to OK drugs, ABGX or MEDX could provide drug companies with the ability to have world-changing drugs to market
BEFORE QCOMs HDR is even a reality. And then it's
GAME-ON.

Or isn't it?

Tim

Print the post  

Announcements

What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.