There was an error in my last post. It should have said...

There was an error in my last post. It should have said �developed� instead of �developing� countries.
To summarise briefly what I was trying to say.
If we are to vote no to 3.55, then we need to think rationally about how much CST is worth. Intellectual property (IP) is a vital consideration here, as are the long term prospects and strategy of CST. At the AGM, I remember AR said �the bigger we get, the more likely we are to face competition�. Previously, I had thought that the skin test was our main competitor, but his comments made me consider our IP more closely because he must have been referring to generic competition. I believe that rights to the TB antigens expire in 2013, but the In-Tube patent lasts beyond 2020. Barring an unlikely major breakthrough, I personally think that the In-Tube patent should be an effective barrier to competition for most TB testing in the developed world for most of its duration because tubes are such a standard and cost-effective receptacle for blood collection and testing. This might not apply in the developing world - as Alexanders said there might already be generic tests in China (would they be �In-Tube� format though?).
If my assumption is correct and the take up of IGRA testing for TB continues apace (as it should after the new CDC guidelines) then 3.55 seems a low price, even if CST never succeeds in any other endeavour.
It also occurred to me that perhaps AR was referring to some point of need (PON) version of the test which could circumvent the In-Tube patent. Now I am no longer thinking that would be such a threat on our core market because, as someone else said here, PON testing does have limitations and is not widely used in developing countries. While it has definite advantages for the developing world it also has disadvantages. For example, it would have to be reasonably sophisticated to cope with the IGRA method and this would make it expensive.
This leaves the question, if 3.55 is low, why did the 2 directors agree to sell their shares at that price and back an agreement that shareholders are unlikely to accept? Perhaps it was partly for lifestyle reasons, as leading such a company would be stressful and tiring. But also it might also include long-term strategy reasons, because CST needs to move into a phase looking well beyond its current products and shareholders need to think about this. Drug companies make most of their money from drugs while they are under patent, so we are probably in a similar situation. I am sure we have things in development, but they might benefit from synergy and this might make CST less patent reliant, for example by having more device-based products.