Patent Board science strength of biotech firms in WSJ

The Wall Street Journal Patent Board Biotechnology Scorecard was published this week in which biotech companies & private research firms are grouped by their Patent Board science strength ranking “which is based on the scale, quality, impact, and nearness to core science of a company’s patent-based intellectual property”.

What I found interesting at the first sight is Geron‘s nice position and the lack of Genentech. Also take a look on the charts and compare, say Illumina and Affymetrix or the research intensity/innovation cycle ratio in case of the same company.

Says my source, San Diego biased marketing expert Rick Cook in an in medias res email:

“Three of the top 10 science-based researchers, according to the rankings, are based in San Diego. Several other San Diego companies fall outside the top 10.
Nanogen, one of my clients, made the rankings. What’s particularly interesting about Nanogen — who competes against #1-ranked Roche — is that the company has by far the lowest market cap (just over $28 million) represented in the rankings. In fact, if you divide patents issued by market cap, which could be used as a proxy for size, Nanogen ranks number one — dollar-for-dollar the most innovative company on the list.”

3 thoughts on “Patent Board science strength of biotech firms in WSJ

  1. this sounds really interesting and I want to look at the original post. Unfortunately your link leads to a newer one about superconductors and i am too dumb to find the older post on their website. You know how to find it?

  2. Soft-updates guarantees that the only filesystem inconsistencies on unclean shutdown are leaked blocks and inodes. To resolve this you can run a background fsck or you can ignore it until you start to run out of space. We also could’ve written a mark and sweep garbage collector but never did. Ultimately, the bgfsck is too expensive and people did not like the uncertainty of not having run fsck. To resolve these issues, I have added a small journal to softupdates. However, I only have to journal block allocation and free, and inode link count changes since softdep guarantees the rest. My journal records are each only 32bytes which is incredibly compact compared to any other journaling solution. We still get the great concurrency and ability to ignore writes which have been canceled by new operations. But now we have recovery time that is around 2 seconds per megabyte of journal in-use. That’s 32,768 blocks allocated, files created, links added, etc. per megabyte of journal.

Comments are closed.