MGRM » Topics » Competition

These excerpts taken from the MGRM 10-K filed Feb 13, 2009.

Competition

The markets for life science research and diagnostic products are highly competitive and are subject to rapid technological change. In particular, approaches to personalized medicine are rapidly evolving and there are many companies attempting to establish their technological approaches and products as the standard of care.

For our HIV resistance testing products, genotypic tests are available through national laboratories such as Quest Diagnostics and Laboratory Corporation of America, as well as regional and hospital laboratories and commercial laboratories such as Mayo Laboratories and Kaiser Permanente. These tests are supplied by a number of manufacturers including Applied Biosystems Group, and Visible Genetics, a division of Siemens. While alternate approaches to phenotypic testing are commercialized, we believe that the primary competition for our phenotypic resistance tests is the alternate approach of genotyping. For our Trofile Co-Receptor Tropism

 

16


Table of Contents

Assay, we are not aware of any other clinically validated products currently available for this application. However, we are aware of efforts by third parties to develop competitive assays using phenotypic and genotypic approaches. We believe that genotypic approaches to the identification of tropism are significantly less precise than our phenotypic approach. Nevertheless, we expect that reference laboratories and academics may develop products based on genotypic approaches.

For diagnostic testing used for cancer therapies, we expect to compete with existing mass protein and RNA based technologies as well as with companies that are developing alternative technological approaches for patient testing in the cancer field. There are likely to be many technological approaches in the emerging field of testing for likely responsiveness to the new class of targeted cancer therapies, potentially from companies that currently commercialize testing products for guiding therapy of cancer patients, such as DakoCytomation A/S, Genzyme, Abbott Laboratories and Roche Diagnostics. Established national clinical laboratories such as Quest Diagnostics and Laboratory Corporation of America may also develop or commercialize services or products that are competitive with those that we anticipate developing and commercializing. In addition, there are likely alternative technology approaches being developed by competitors and evaluated by pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies as well as being studied by the oncology community. In particular, while products based on our VeraTag technology are based on the identification of protein-based differences among patients, there is significant interest in the oncology community for gene-based approaches that may be available from other companies.

We believe that the principal competitive factors in our markets are product capability supported by clinical validation, scientific credibility and reputation, customer service, cost effectiveness of the technology and the sales and marketing strength of the supplier.

Many of our competitors and potential competitors in these markets have substantially greater market presence and substantially greater financial, technical and human resources than we do. We cannot assure you that our competitors will not succeed in developing technologies and products that would render our technologies and products obsolete and noncompetitive. We also cannot assure you that we will be able to compete effectively with these competitors’ greater marketing presence and financial strength.

Competition

STYLE="margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:0px; text-indent:4%">The markets for life science research and diagnostic products are highly competitive and are subject to rapid technological change. In particular,
approaches to personalized medicine are rapidly evolving and there are many companies attempting to establish their technological approaches and products as the standard of care.

STYLE="margin-top:12px;margin-bottom:0px; text-indent:4%">For our HIV resistance testing products, genotypic tests are available through national laboratories such as Quest Diagnostics and Laboratory Corporation
of America, as well as regional and hospital laboratories and commercial laboratories such as Mayo Laboratories and Kaiser Permanente. These tests are supplied by a number of manufacturers including Applied Biosystems Group, and Visible Genetics, a
division of Siemens. While alternate approaches to phenotypic testing are commercialized, we believe that the primary competition for our phenotypic resistance tests is the alternate approach of genotyping. For our Trofile Co-Receptor Tropism

 


16







Table of Contents



Assay, we are not aware of any other clinically validated products currently available for this application. However, we are aware of efforts by third
parties to develop competitive assays using phenotypic and genotypic approaches. We believe that genotypic approaches to the identification of tropism are significantly less precise than our phenotypic approach. Nevertheless, we expect that
reference laboratories and academics may develop products based on genotypic approaches.

For diagnostic testing used for cancer therapies,
we expect to compete with existing mass protein and RNA based technologies as well as with companies that are developing alternative technological approaches for patient testing in the cancer field. There are likely to be many technological
approaches in the emerging field of testing for likely responsiveness to the new class of targeted cancer therapies, potentially from companies that currently commercialize testing products for guiding therapy of cancer patients, such as
DakoCytomation A/S, Genzyme, Abbott Laboratories and Roche Diagnostics. Established national clinical laboratories such as Quest Diagnostics and Laboratory Corporation of America may also develop or commercialize services or products that are
competitive with those that we anticipate developing and commercializing. In addition, there are likely alternative technology approaches being developed by competitors and evaluated by pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies as well as being
studied by the oncology community. In particular, while products based on our VeraTag technology are based on the identification of protein-based differences among patients, there is significant interest in the oncology community for
gene-based approaches that may be available from other companies.

We believe that the principal competitive factors in our markets are
product capability supported by clinical validation, scientific credibility and reputation, customer service, cost effectiveness of the technology and the sales and marketing strength of the supplier.

STYLE="margin-top:12px;margin-bottom:0px; text-indent:4%">Many of our competitors and potential competitors in these markets have substantially greater market presence and substantially greater financial,
technical and human resources than we do. We cannot assure you that our competitors will not succeed in developing technologies and products that would render our technologies and products obsolete and noncompetitive. We also cannot assure you that
we will be able to compete effectively with these competitors’ greater marketing presence and financial strength.

These excerpts taken from the MGRM 10-K filed Mar 12, 2008.

Competition

The markets for life science research and diagnostic products are highly competitive and are subject to rapid technological change. In particular, approaches to personalized medicine are rapidly evolving and there are many companies attempting to establish their technological approaches and products as the standard of care.

For our HIV resistance testing products, the principal competitors include Tibotec-Virco, a division of Johnson & Johnson, Specialty Laboratories, Applied Biosystems Group, Visible Genetics, a division of Siemens, Viralliance, and reference and academic laboratories performing genotypic testing. For our Trofile Co-Receptor Tropism Assay, we are not aware of any other clinically validated products currently available for this application. However, we are aware of efforts by third parties to develop competitive assays using phenotypic and genotypic approaches. We believe that genotypic approaches to the identification of tropism are significantly less precise than our phenotypic approach. Nevertheless, we expect that reference laboratories and academics may develop products based on genotypic approaches.

For diagnostic testing used for cancer therapies, we expect to compete with companies that are developing alternative technological approaches for patient testing in the cancer field. There are likely to be many competitive companies and many technological approaches in the emerging field of testing for likely responsiveness to the new class of targeted cancer therapies, including companies such as DakoCytomation A/S, Genzyme and Abbott Laboratories, that currently commercialize testing products for guiding therapy of cancer patients. Established diagnostic product companies such as Abbott Laboratories, Roche Diagnostics and Bayer Diagnostics and established clinical laboratories such as Quest Diagnostics and Laboratory Corporation of America may also develop or commercialize services or products that are competitive with those that we anticipate developing and commercializing. In addition, there are numerous alternative technological approaches being developed by competitors and evaluated by pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies as well as being studied by the oncology community. In particular, while our anticipated oncology testing products will be based on the identification of protein-based differences among patients, there is significant interest in the oncology community for gene-based approaches that may be available from other companies.

We believe that the principal competitive factors in our markets are product capability supported by clinical validation, scientific credibility and reputation, customer service, cost effectiveness of the technology and the sales and marketing strength of the supplier.

Many of our competitors and potential competitors in these markets have substantially greater market presence and substantially greater financial, technical and human resources than we do. We cannot assure you that our competitors will not succeed in developing technologies and products that would render our technologies and products obsolete and noncompetitive. We also cannot assure you that we will be able to compete effectively with these competitors’ greater marketing presence and financial strength.

Competition

SIZE="2">The markets for life science research and diagnostic products are highly competitive and are subject to rapid technological change. In particular, approaches to personalized medicine are rapidly evolving and there are many companies
attempting to establish their technological approaches and products as the standard of care.

For our HIV resistance testing products, the
principal competitors include Tibotec-Virco, a division of Johnson & Johnson, Specialty Laboratories, Applied Biosystems Group, Visible Genetics, a division of Siemens, Viralliance, and reference and academic laboratories performing
genotypic testing. For our Trofile Co-Receptor Tropism Assay, we are not aware of any other clinically validated products currently available for this application. However, we are aware of efforts by third parties to develop competitive assays using
phenotypic and genotypic approaches. We believe that genotypic approaches to the identification of tropism are significantly less precise than our phenotypic approach. Nevertheless, we expect that reference laboratories and academics may develop
products based on genotypic approaches.

For diagnostic testing used for cancer therapies, we expect to compete with companies that are
developing alternative technological approaches for patient testing in the cancer field. There are likely to be many competitive companies and many technological approaches in the emerging field of testing for likely responsiveness to the new class
of targeted cancer therapies, including companies such as DakoCytomation A/S, Genzyme and Abbott Laboratories, that currently commercialize testing products for guiding therapy of cancer patients. Established diagnostic product companies such as
Abbott Laboratories, Roche Diagnostics and Bayer Diagnostics and established clinical laboratories such as Quest Diagnostics and Laboratory Corporation of America may also develop or commercialize services or products that are competitive with those
that we anticipate developing and commercializing. In addition, there are numerous alternative technological approaches being developed by competitors and evaluated by pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies as well as being studied by the
oncology community. In particular, while our anticipated oncology testing products will be based on the identification of protein-based differences among patients, there is significant interest in the oncology community for gene-based approaches
that may be available from other companies.

We believe that the principal competitive factors in our markets are product capability
supported by clinical validation, scientific credibility and reputation, customer service, cost effectiveness of the technology and the sales and marketing strength of the supplier.

STYLE="margin-top:12px;margin-bottom:0px; text-indent:4%">Many of our competitors and potential competitors in these markets have substantially greater market presence and substantially greater financial,
technical and human resources than we do. We cannot assure you that our competitors will not succeed in developing technologies and products that would render our technologies and products obsolete and noncompetitive. We also cannot assure you that
we will be able to compete effectively with these competitors’ greater marketing presence and financial strength.

This excerpt taken from the MGRM 10-K filed Mar 9, 2007.

Competition

The markets for life science research and diagnostic products are highly competitive and are subject to rapid technological change. In particular, approaches to personalized medicine are rapidly evolving and there are many companies attempting to establish their technological approaches and products as the standard of care.

For our HIV resistance testing products, the principal competitors include Tibotec-Virco, a division of Johnson & Johnson, Specialty Laboratories, Applied Biosystems Group, Visible Genetics, a division of Siemens, Viralliance, and reference and academic laboratories performing genotypic testing. For our Trofile Co-Receptor Tropism Assay, we are not aware of any other products currently available for this application. However, we are aware of efforts by third parties to develop competitive assays using phenotypic and genotypic approaches. Genotypic approaches to the identification of tropism are thought to be significantly less precise than our phenotypic approach.

For diagnostic testing for cancer therapies, we expect to compete with companies that are developing alternative technological approaches for patient testing in the cancer field. There are likely to be many competitive companies and many technological approaches in the emerging field of testing for likely responsiveness to the new class of targeted cancer therapies, including companies such as DakoCytomation A/S, Genzyme and Abbott Laboratories that currently commercialize testing products for guiding therapy of cancer patients. Established diagnostic product companies such as Abbott Laboratories, Roche Diagnostics and Bayer Diagnostics and established clinical laboratories such as Quest Diagnostics and Laboratory Corporation of America may also develop or commercialize services or products that are competitive with those that we anticipate developing and commercializing. In addition, there are a number of alternative technological approaches being developed by competitors and evaluated by pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies and being studied by the oncology community. In particular, while our anticipated oncology testing products will be based on the identification of protein-based differences among patients, there is significant interest in the oncology community in gene-based approaches that may be available from other companies.

 

15


Table of Contents

We believe that the principal competitive factors in our markets are product capability supported by clinical validation, scientific credibility and reputation, customer service, cost effectiveness of the technology and the sales and marketing strength of the supplier.

Many of our competitors and potential competitors in these markets have substantially greater market presence and substantially greater financial, technical and human resources than we do. We cannot assure you that they will not succeed in developing technologies and products that would render our technologies and products obsolete and noncompetitive. We also cannot assure you that we will be able to compete effectively with these competitors’ greater marketing presence and financial strength.

This excerpt taken from the MGRM 10-K filed Mar 16, 2006.

Competition

 

The markets for life science research and diagnostic products are highly competitive and are subject to rapid technological change. In particular, approaches to personalized medicine are rapidly evolving and there are many companies attempting to establish their technological approaches and products as the standard of care.

 

For our HIV testing products, the principal competitors include Tibotec-Virco, a division of Johnson & Johnson, Specialty Laboratories, Applied Biosystems Group, Visible Genetics, a division of Bayer Diagnostics, and reference and academic laboratories performing genotypic testing.

 

For diagnostic testing for cancer therapies, we expect to compete with companies that are developing alternative technological approaches for patient testing in the cancer field. There are likely to be many competitive companies and many technological approaches in the emerging field of testing for likely responsiveness to the new class of targeted cancer therapies, including companies such as DakoCytomation A/S, Genzyme and Abbott Laboratories that currently commercialize testing products for guiding therapy of cancer patients. Established diagnostic product companies such as Abbott Laboratories, Roche Diagnostics and Bayer Diagnostics and established clinical laboratories such as Quest Diagnostics and Laboratory Corporation of American may also develop or commercialize services or products that are competitive with those that we anticipate developing and commercializing. In addition, there are a number of alternative technological approaches being developed by competitors and evaluated by pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies and being studied by the oncology community. In particular, while our anticipated oncology testing products will be based on the identification of protein-based differences among patients, there is significant interest in the oncology community in gene-based approaches that may be available from other companies.

 

We believe that the principal competitive factors in our markets are product capability supported by clinical validation, scientific credibility and reputation, customer service, cost effectiveness of the technology and the sales and marketing strength of the supplier.

 

Many of our competitors and potential competitors in these markets have substantially greater market presence and substantially greater financial, technical and human resources than we do. We cannot assure you that they will not succeed in developing technologies and products that would render our technologies and

 

13


Table of Contents

products obsolete and noncompetitive. We also cannot assure you that we will be able to compete effectively with these competitors’ greater marketing presence and financial strength.

 

This excerpt taken from the MGRM 10-K filed Mar 16, 2005.

Competition

 

The markets for life science research and diagnostic products are highly competitive and are subject to rapid technological change. In particular, approaches to personalized medicine are rapidly evolving and there are many companies attempting to establish their technological approaches and products as the standard of care.

 

For our HIV testing products, the major competitors include manufacturers and distributors of phenotypic drug resistance technology, such as Tibotec-Virco, a division of Johnson & Johnson, and Specialty Laboratories. We also compete with makers of genotypic tests such as Applied Biosystems Group, Visible Genetics Inc., a division of Bayer Diagnostics, and laboratories performing genotypic testing as well as other genotypic testing referred to as virtual phenotyping.

 

For diagnostic testing for cancer therapies, we expect to compete with companies that are developing alternative technological approaches for patient testing in the cancer field. There are likely to be many competitive companies and many technological approaches in the emerging field of testing for likely responsiveness to the new class of targeted cancer therapies, including companies such as DakoCytomation A/S and Abbott Laboratories that currently commercialize testing products for guiding therapy of cancer patients. Established diagnostic product companies such as Abbott Laboratories, Roche Diagnostics and Bayer Diagnostics and established clinical laboratories such as Quest Diagnostics and LabCorp may also develop or commercialize services or products that are competitive with those that we anticipate developing and commercializing. In addition, there are a number of alternative technological approaches being developed by competitors and evaluated by pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies and being studied by the oncology community. In particular, while our anticipated oncology testing products will be based on the identification of protein-based differences among patients, there is significant interest in the oncology community in gene-based approaches that may be available from other companies.

 

We believe that the principal competitive factors in our markets are product capability supported by clinical validation, scientific credibility and reputation, customer service, cost effectiveness of the technology and the sales and marketing strength of the supplier.

 

14


Table of Contents

Many of our competitors and potential competitors in these markets have substantially greater market presence and substantially greater financial, technical and human resources than we do. We cannot assure you that they will not succeed in developing technologies and products that would render our technologies and products obsolete and noncompetitive. We also cannot assure you that we will be able to compete effectively with these competitors’ greater marketing presence and financial strength.

 

Wikinvest © 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012. Use of this site is subject to express Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, and Disclaimer. By continuing past this page, you agree to abide by these terms. Any information provided by Wikinvest, including but not limited to company data, competitors, business analysis, market share, sales revenues and other operating metrics, earnings call analysis, conference call transcripts, industry information, or price targets should not be construed as research, trading tips or recommendations, or investment advice and is provided with no warrants as to its accuracy. Stock market data, including US and International equity symbols, stock quotes, share prices, earnings ratios, and other fundamental data is provided by data partners. Stock market quotes delayed at least 15 minutes for NASDAQ, 20 mins for NYSE and AMEX. Market data by Xignite. See data providers for more details. Company names, products, services and branding cited herein may be trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The use of trademarks or service marks of another is not a representation that the other is affiliated with, sponsors, is sponsored by, endorses, or is endorsed by Wikinvest.
Powered by MediaWiki