Its not legalese just Ross's personal choice of English words in...

Its not legalese just Ross's personal choice of English words in my opinion.

Deals do have a structure. Value and risk is allocated in that structure.

It is worth bearing in mind that nowhere in the world have iPSC's gone into phase 2 clinical trials before and that the language of the 19 January 2017 announcement leaves quite a bit still to be decided. For instance double digit royalties could be anywhere between 10% and 99%. That is quite a range of negotiation.

Also world-wide (not just Japanese) rights to market and sell are mentioned. Working out how to do that such that value is fairly apportioned between CYP and Fujifilm given no country has done it yet wouldn't be trivial and neither side would want to forfeit to much value to the other. What happens when Fuji takes the option if they do is they take on the development cost risks and essentially CYP gets free carried to some extent. But given this has never been done before it probably is not surprising Fujifilm would want to understand its development cost risks and to get its milestones payments in places that are not too value surrendering for them either.

Bottom line it is a genuinely a tricky deal to craft (because it has never been done before) such that both Fujifilm and Cyp managements could go back to their shareholders claiming they got a good deal in the detail.

The moment of accepting the option is potentially a high risk accepting moment for Fujifilm is my point. What if they agree milestone payments and things outside their control impact those payments?

I didn't agree with smarty13 that no ground had been given up, because I do see granting an extension as giving up some ground, but it might in fact be that this is still CYP management performing well, the facts don't eliminate that possibility if Fujifilm brought reasonable concerns to them late in the option period and those might have arisen because this whole area is new and happening for the first time. Imo.