sos2005_stemcell_innovation by deiney

VIEWS: 8 PAGES: 65

									Conference Underwriter

Stem Cell Innovation: The Next-Frontier Economy?

Polling Question: Which Would You Prefer the Federal Government to Do?
1. 2. 3. 4. Place No Restrictions on Government Funding of Stem Cell Research Ease the Current Restrictions to Allow More Stem Cell Research Keep the Current Restrictions Government Should not Fund Stem Cell Research at All

Polling Question: In General, Do You Think that it Is Morally Acceptable or Morally Wrong to Use Human Cloning Technology in Developing New Treatments for Disease?
1. 2. 3. Acceptable Wrong Don’t Know

Polling Question: How Important Do You Think it Is that California is a Global Leader in Medical and Scientific Research?
1. 2. 3. Very Important Somewhat Important Not Important

Polling Question: Where Will the Highest Rate of Return for California's Investment in Stem Cell Research Accrue?
1. 2. 3. Cures or Treatment of Disease for Residents Jobs and Wages Created at Biopharmaceutical Firms in the State State Government Guaranteed Rate of Return

Stem Cell Research

Stem Cell Research Centers

World Stem Cell Map

International Regulations
Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Prohibition Utilisation Austria Germany Brazil USA Costa Rica Denmark Equador Ireland Peru Poland

Utilisation and Extraction Australia Canada Greece Japan Spain Sweden The Netherlands France

Extraction and Creation Singapore UK Israel China

Who is Leading the Way?
Stem Cell Research
• • • • • SOUTH KOREA Researchers refined a process to clone stem cells in human embryos (nuclear transfer, therapeutic cloning). CHINA As in South Korea, China’s scientists benefit from regulatory standards less strict than ours. SINGAPORE The development of stem cell science is a national priority in Singapore. ISRAEL Israeli scientists have been leaders in the use of embryonic stem cells to study diabetes, heart disease and cancer. UK The United Kingdom has long been a leader in embryo sciences, creating groundbreaking fertility procedures in the 1970s and cloning Dolly the sheep in 1996.

Transplantation
Stem Cell Research

Stem Cells
Embryonic vs. Adult Stem Cells • Embryonic Stem Cells are taken from the embryo that can form differentiated cells for all tissues in the body. Embryonic stem cells can self renew and be cultured as a cell line in vitro. • Adult Stem Cells are undifferentiated cells found in a specialized tissue. Adult stem cells have the ability to make a limited range of specialized cell types. Adult stem cells are rare, difficult to isolate and have a limited capacity to divide.

Possible Sources of Stem Cells
Embryonic Stem Cells, Embryonic Germ Cells, Adult Cells

• Embryos created via IVF (for infertility treatment or for research purposes) • Embryos or fetuses obtained through elective abortion • Embryos created via SCNT (somatic cell nuclear transfer, or cloning) • Adult tissues (bone marrow, umbilical core blood)

Five-Year Cancer Survival Rate
1950s-1990s
Percent

65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s

Economic Value of Eliminating Deaths
2000
US$ Trillions

50 40 30 20 10 0

Heart Disease

Cancer

Stroke

AIDS U.S. Balance Sheet

Cost of Alzheimer’s Disease
CA Community Residents with Alzh. Disease
US$ Billions

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 2000 2020 (est.) 2040 (est.)

Economic Costs of Major Illnesses
1995-1999
Illness Injury Heart Diseases Disability Mental Disorders Cancer Alzheimer's Disease Diabetes Chronic Pain Conditions Arthritis Digestive Diseases Stroke Kidney and Urological Diseases Eye Diseases Pulmonary Diseases HIV / AIDS Other (10 further Illnesses) Total - 25 Illnesses Year 1995 1999 1986 1992 1994 1997 1997 1986 1992 1985 1998 1985 1991 1998 1999 various Direct Costs 89.0 101.8 82.1 66.8 41.4 15.0 44.1 45.0 15.2 41.5 28.3 26.2 22.3 21.6 13.4 53.4 707.1 Ratio of indirect Indirect Costs Total Costs to total costs US$ Billions 248.0 337.0 74% 81.3 183.1 44% 87.3 169.4 52% 94.0 160.8 58% 68.7 110.1 62% 85.0 100.0 85% 54.1 98.2 55% 34.0 79.0 43% 49.6 64.8 77% 14.7 56.2 26% 15.0 43.3 35% 14.1 40.3 35% 16.1 38.4 42% 16.2 37.3 43% 15.5 28.9 54% 23.9 77.2 31% 917.5 1624.0 56%

Therapeutic Applications for Stem Cells
Regenerative Medicine

• Cardiomyocytes for Heart Disease • Islet Cells for Diabetes • Neural Cells for Parkinson’s • Blood Cells for Cancer • Chondrocytes for Burns

Stem Cells Could Potentially Cure
Stem Cell Research
Diseases Cancer Heart Disease Osteoporosis Parkinson's Disease Diabetes Blindness Spinal Cord Injury Therapy By rebuilding tissues destroyed by disease By replacing ischemic heart tissue with healthy cardiac cells and by growing new blood vessels By repopulating bones with strong, new cells By replacing the brain's dopamine-producing cells By infusing the pancreas with new insulin-producing islet cells By replacing the cells of the retina lost to macular degeneration, glaucoma or diabetic retinopathy By replacing nerve cells in the spinal cord

Stem Cells Could Potentially Cure ─ Cont.
Stem Cell Research
Diseases Kidney Disease Liver Disease Therapy By replacing the cells, tissues, or even the kidney itself

By replacing liver cells or the liver itself By generating new nerve tissue throughout Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis the spinal cord and body Alzheimer's Disease Muscular Dystrophy Osteoarthritis Autoimmune Disease Lung Disease By healing and replacing brain cells By replacing muscle tissue and possibly delivering gene-based cures By helping the body re-grow cartilage By repopulating the cells of the blood and the immune system By growing new lung tissue

Federal Policy on Embryonic Human Stem Cell Research
2001

• Federal funds can only be used on stem cell lines that have been derived before August 9, 2001. • Lines have to be from unused blastocysts that were made for IVF. • Originally 64 lines, now 21. • All lines were made with mouse feeder cells. They have mouse antigens and many of the lines appear to have chromosomal rearrangements.

Funding for Stem Cell Research by NIH
FY 2003-2006 (est.)
US$ Millions

700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0

Stem Cell Research Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research

2003

2004

2005 (est.)

2006 (est.)

Top 15 Diseases, Conditions, Research Areas by Level of NIH Funding
FY 2003-2006 (est.)
NIH Funding US$ Millions FY 2004 FY 2005 (est.) 10,685 10,976 8,495 8,712 7,185 7,227 5,547 5,643 4,911 5,028 4,821 4,931 4,535 4,620 3,478 3,525 3,132 3,195 3,055 3,102 2,932 2,992 2,877 2,946 2,850 2,921 2,590 2,646 2,360 2,409

Disease, Condition, Research Area Biotechnology Clinical Research Prevention Cancer Neurosciences Brain Disorders Genetics Women's Health Pediatric Infectious Diseases Behavioral and Social Sciences Clinical Trials HIV/AIDS Health Disparities Cardiovascular

FY 2003 9,893 8,028 6,546 5,432 4,711 4,740 4,236 3,498 3,066 2,441 2,684 2,723 2,716 2,430 2,286

FY 2006 (est.) 11,043 8,792 7,375 5,641 5,055 4,961 4,637 3,531 3,204 3,104 2,998 2,966 2,933 2,663 2,420

Funding for Biomedical Research by Source
2000-2004
US$, Billions 2001 2002 2003 19.8 6.7 3.7 2.6 23.5 15.7 7.3 79.4 85.1 22.3 7.6 4.0 2.6 25.7 20.5 8.3 90.9 94.6 26.4 6.9 4.3 2.5 27.0 17.9 9.2 94.3 94.3

Source National Institutes of Health Other Federal State and Local Government Foundations, Charities, and Other Private Funds Pharmaceutical Firms Biotechnology Firms Medical Device Firms Total Adjusted Total*

2000 17.1 5.2 3.5 3.4 21.4 14.2 6.3 71.0 78.9

2004 26.9 6.4 N/A N/A 30.6 19.8 10.8 94.5

*Adjuted by the Biom edical Research and Developm ent Price Index

NIH List of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Lines
Eligible for Use in Federal Research
Name BresaGen, Inc., Athens, GA Cell & Gene Therapy Institute (Pochan CHA University), Seoul, Korea Cellaritis AB, Goteborg, Sweden CyThera, Inc., San Diego, CA ES Cell International, Melbourne, Australia Geron Corporation, Menlo Park, CA Goteborg University, Goteborg, Sweden Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden Maria Biotech Co. Ltd. - Maria Infertility Hospital Medical Institute, Seoul, Korea MizMedi Hospital - Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea National Center for Biological Sciences/Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bangalore, India Reliance Life Sciences, Mumbai, India Technion University, Haifa, Israel University of California, San Francisco, CA Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, Madison, WI Total Number of Stem Cell Lines Eligible Available 4 3 2 3 9 6 7 16 6 3 1 3 7 4 2 5 78 N/A 2 0 6 N/A N/A 0 N/A 1 N/A N/A 2 2 5 21

Investments in U.S. Companies
Companies Conducting Embryonic & Adult Stem Cell Research, 2003
US$ Millions

50 40 30 20 10 0

ViaCell

Geron

StemCells, Inc.

Cythera, Inc.

FY 2006 President’s Budget Request
Total NIH Budget Authority: $28,740 Million
Research Project Grants, 56%

Research Training, 3% Res., Mgmt. & Support, 4%

R&D Contracts, 11% Intramural Research, 11%

Other Research, 6%

Research Centers, 9%

History of Stem Cells Research and Therapeutic Applications
Stem Cell Research

• 1998
– First human embryonic stem cells derived and cultured from a blastocyst – Potential for self renewal and differentiation recognized

• 1997
– Cloning of Dolly by SCNT signaled the potential to produce embryonic stem cells with defined genetic make-up

Translation of New Technologies into Therapies Takes Time
Stem Cell Research

• Recombinant DNA (1960s;1970s)
– Human Genome Sequence (2002) – Human Growth Hormone; Factor VIII (1980s)

• Monoclonal Antibodies (1970s;1980s)
– New Cancer Therapies (Herceptin; Avastin) (2002-5)

• Stem Cells
– May Aid Drug Discovery – New Therapy (20??)

Stem Cell Research
2002-03 Bills and Laws
Prohibit all Human Cloning (incl. Therapeutic) X Law X X X X X X Allow Therapeutic Cloning Specifically Ban Destructive Embryonic Research Allow Embryonic Stem Cell Research

State AL AR AZ CA CO CT DE FL GA HI IA ID IL IN KS KY LA

Prohibit Reproductive Cloning X Law X X Law X X X X

X Law

Law X X X X X

Law X X X X X Law

Law X X X

The Law s that have already been enacted are indicated by the w ord "Law " The Bills are indicated by an "X"

Stem Cell Research
2002-03 Bills and Laws, Cont’d
Prohibit all Human Cloning (incl. Therapeutic) X Allow Therapeutic Cloning Specifically Ban Destructive Embryonic Research Allow Embryonic Stem Cell Research X X

State MA MD ME MI MN MO MS MT NC ND NE NH NJ NM NV NY

Prohibit Reproductive Cloning X

Law X

Law X

X

Law X X X

Law X X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

The Law s that have already been enacted are indicated by the w ord "Law " The Bills are indicated by an "X"

Stem Cell Research
2002-03 Bills and Laws, Cont’d
Prohibit all Human Cloning (incl. Therapeutic) X X Allow Therapeutic Cloning Specifically Ban Destructive Embryonic Research Allow Embryonic Stem Cell Research

State OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VA VT WA WI WV WY

Prohibit Reproductive Cloning X X Law X X X Law X X X X

X X

X X X

X X X X X X

X X X

The Laws that have already been enacted are indicated by the word "Law" The Bills are indicated by an "X"

Proposition 71
Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative • Establishes California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) to regulate stem cell research and provide funding. • Establishes constitutional right to conduct stem cell research; prohibits CIRM’s funding of human reproductive cloning research. • Provides General Fund loan up to $3 million for CIRM’s initial administration/implementation costs. • Authorizes issuance of general obligation bonds to finance CIRM activities up to $3 billion subject to annual limit of $350 million.

Proposition 71 – Total Program Costs and Benefits
Case 1: Limited Therapeutic Success
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Years 1-5 Years 6-14 Years 15-35 US$ Millions Economic Costs to State Bugdet Economic Benefits to State Budget 1) Tax revenues from Proposition 71 direct spending 2) Tax revenues from 2.5% increase in life sciences activity 3) Cost savings from 1% reduction in state spending 4) Royalty revenues using 2% royalty rate Total % of Total Costs Additional Benefits to Californians Not Incl. in State Budget Health care cost savings from 1% cost reductions % of Total Costs Estimated Jobs Created (One Job for One Year = One Job Year) Job years from Proposition 71 direct spending Job years from increase in life sciences activity Total 56 1,289 4,010 Total

5,355

73 54 127 227%

167 355 382 10 914 71%

1,796 3,062 527 5,385 134%

240 2,206 3,444 537 6,426 120%

0%

1,136 88%

8,043 201%

9,180 171%

14,272 11,967 26,239

33,209 67,732 100,940

233,148 233,148

47,480 312,847 360,328

Proposition 71 – Total Program Costs and Benefits
Case 2: Increased Therapeutic Success
Phase 1 Years 1-5 Phase 2 Phase 3 Years 6-14 Years 15-35 US$ Millions 1,289 4,010 Total

Economic Costs to State Bugdet Economic Benefits to State Budget 1) Tax revenues from Proposition 71 direct spending 2) Tax revenues from 5.0% increase in life sciences activity 3) Cost savings from 2% reduction in state spending 4) Royalty revenues using 4% royalty rate Total % of Total Costs Additional Benefits to Californians Not Incl. in State Budget Health care cost savings from 2% cost reductions % of Total Costs Estimated Jobs Created (One Job for One Year = One Job Year) Job years from Proposition 71 direct spending Job years from increase in life sciences activity Total

56

5,355

73 108 181 324%

167 711 764 19 1,662 129%

3,592 6,123 1,054 10,769 269%

240 4,411 6,887 1,073 12,612 236%

0%

2,273 176%

16,087 401%

18,359 343%

14,272 23,934 38,206

33,209 135,464 168,672

466,296 466,296

47,480 625,695 673,175

Proposition 71 – Total Program Costs and Benefits
Case 3: Expanded Therapeutic Success
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Years 1-5 Years 6-14 Years 15-35 US$ Millions Economic Costs to State Bugdet Economic Benefits to State Budget 1) Tax revenues from Proposition 71 direct spending 2) Tax revenues from 5.0% increase in life sciences activity 3) Cost savings from 10% reduction in state spending 4) Royalty revenues using 4% royalty rate Total % of Total Costs Additional Benefits to Californians not incl. in State Budget Health care cost savings from 10% cost reductions % of Total Costs Estimated Jobs Created (One job for one year = one job year) Job years from Proposition 71 direct spending Job years from increase in life sciences activity Total 56 1,289 4,010 Total

5,355

73 108 181 324%

167 711 3,821 19 4,718 366%

3,592 30,616 1,054 35,262 879%

240 4,411 34,437 1,047 40,161 750%

0%

11,364 882%

80,434 2006%

91,797 1714%

14,272 23,934 38,206

33,209 135,464 168,672

466,296 466,296

47,480 625,695 673,175

CA ─ Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative
Fiscal Fact Sheet

• Funds Life-Saving Research • Generates New Revenue and Jobs for the State
– California will benefit from Patents and Royalties – Construction of Research Facilities and new Jobs – Sales and Income Taxes generated from Bond Proceeds are projected to reach $70 million in first 5 years

• Reduce Healthcare Costs by Billions
– Californians spend more than $110 billion annually on Healthcare Expenses

Korean Stem Cell Research
Fact Sheet

• Derived 11 new lines, including lines from males, females. Furthermore, the new lines include patients with spinal cord injury, inherited blood disease and diabetes. • Egg donation from one woman sufficient to derive a line. • Conclusive demonstration that the cell line was genetically identical to the nuclear donor.

European Stem Cell Research
Organizations

• EuroStemCell (European Consortium for Stem Cell Research) • Cambridge (UK) Stem Cell Institute • Institute for Stem Cell Research, University of Edinburgh, Scotland • Lund Stem Cell Center (Sweden) • Karolinska Institute (Sweden) • Danish Stem Cell Research Center (Denmark) • National Center for Stem Cell Research (Norway)

Regulations in Selected EU Member States
Human Embryonic Stem Cell (hES) Research
Prohibiting Allowing procurement of procurement hES cells of hES cells from human from embryos but supernumary allowing embryos by importation of law hES cell lines X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Prohibiting No specific creation of Prohibiting legislation human embryo procurement regarding for research of hES cells human purpose and for from human embryo procurement of embryo research hES cells by law X X

Country Austria Belgium Germany Denmark Greece Spain Finland France Ireland Italy Netherlands Poland Portugal Sweden United Kingdom

Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer
Dolly the Sheep

Human Embryonic Stem Cells
Self-Renewing Source for the Scalable Manufacturing of Replacement Cells for Every Tissue in the Body

Blastocyst

Human Embryonic Stem Cells Chondrocytes Osteoblasts Hematopoietic Cells Islets

Hepatocytes

Drug Discovery

Cardiomyocytes Neural Cells Osteoporosis And Bone Bone Marrow Fractures Transplant Diabetes Parkinson’s Spinal Cord Disease Injury Heart Failure

Arthritis

Take Home Message of CCST’s Interim IP Report
CA has taken a bold step CIRM-funded research will benefit state in significant ways But, expectations of short-term revenue stream and quick availability of new treatments overstated
Near-term benefits:
Magnet effect for talent to come to CA Enhanced business activity to support research

Long-term benefits:
Creation of new high-tech jobs Stimulation of the economy and tax revenues

Will result in new products and therapeutic treatments--but will take time

Overriding IP consideration for grantees should be to move technology from research to other entities as effectively as possible for the public benefit

Expectations

Taxpayers’ return on investment is one issue that figured prominently in literature used to promote Prop 71. We find that these proposals, and the statements and studies on which they were based, have unrealistic assumptions about the potential economic impact of CIRM’s research program. All interested parties must be mindful of overestimating both the projected revenue stream from IP generated by CIRMfunded grants and the timeline to achieve it.

Examples of Unrealistic Assumptions
• Therapies will use many patents from many sources

Royalties from CIRM research alone small
• US universities receive about $1B from licensing for $40B investment • Only 1 in 400 inventions generate more than $1M over lifetime • CIRM’s $300M may generate $10M • Companies pay for commercialization and will not partner if many restrictions

Expectations – Cont.

• While expectations of a short-term revenue stream and quick availability to the public of new treatments overstated, CIRM-funded research can be expected to benefit the state in significant ways, particularly in the long term.
– Improved quality of life for those who suffer from debilitating diseases – Attractiveness of CA as a location for biotech companies – Development of research tools that will drive research forward

Context of CA Stem Cell Funding
• CIRM funding – $300 M per year for 10 years • NIH Biomedical research budget $30 B • Federal funding of research in higher education, private research institutes, and national labs in California – $14 B per year • Industry funded R&D in California – $45 B per year

Expenditures on Biological and Biomedical Research at Largest CA Universities, 2003
Institution UCSF UCLA Stanford UCSD UCD USC Expenditures(millions) $643 $607 $333 $330 $248 >$201 Total >$2.3 Billion

State Funded R&D

Total state funded R&D approximately $300 M/year Major state programs:
PIER and Natural Gas Research HIV-AIDS Breast Cancer Tobacco-related Disease Sustainable Agriculture Research Health & Human Services Child & Family Trust Geothermal Resources Development $74.5 M/year $9.2 M/year $14.9 M/year $14 M/year $7.5 M/year $5.2 M/year $17.9 M/year $4.6 M/year

TOTAL

$148 M/year

In addition, California Institutes for Science and Innovation $920M over five years

Current Stem Cell Research Centers in California
• • • • • • • • • • • The Burnham Institute The Salk Institute The Scripps Research Institute Stanford University UC Berkeley UC Davis – Center for Regenerative Science and Therapies UC Irvine – The Reeve-Irvine Research Center UCLA Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Medicine UC San Diego UC San Francisco UC Irvine – The Reeve-Irvine Research Center

Models for IP Policy

• Bayh-Dole Patent and Trademark Amendments Act of 1980 rationalized and simplified the process of moving technologies generated by federally funded research from university laboratories to the private sector • Difficult to measure direct effect of Bayh-Dole on tech transfer, but is generally considered to have contributed positively to development of some technologies • In many ways, situation in California today regarding state-funded research resembles federal situation prior to passage of Bayh-Dole • Federal policy takes precedence over state policy

Biomedical R&D Long and Costly

• Average time to development of a therapy from basic research: 10 years • Vast majority of inventions don’t lead to therapies

War on Cancer
Case Study: Development of Rituxan by Biogen Idec

Recommendations:
CIRM IP Policy Objectives (1)
• Support open dissemination of research results and transfer of knowledge • Ensure that discoveries & research tools are made broadly available • To the extent possible, preserve ability for grantees to leverage non-CIRM funds in stem-cell related research • Encourage practical application of CIRM-funded research results for broad public benefit • Accelerate translation of discoveries from research to commercially available diagnostics and treatments • To extent possible, balance existing investments with state investments so each receives appropriate return

Recommendations:
CIRM IP Policy Objectives (2)

• Promote collaboration between commercial entities and non-profit institutions • Encourage private investors to invest in further research and development of new technologies resulting from CIRM-funded research • Minimize costs of administering policies • Be mindful of time delay and private investment needed before significant benefits accrue to the state

Return on Investment (1)

• Ownership of intellectual property central issue to any IP policy • Under Bayh-Dole, ownership resides with grantee • In considering IP ownership, important for CIRM to consider: • Relative importance of a policy consistent with Bayh-Dole statute • • Who is best able to manage resulting IP Existing financial models in place to make appropriate investments in protecting early-stage results

Return on Investment (2)

• Defining return on investment complicated • Revenues often modest and years in coming • Various options for distribution of revenues • State must balance desire for financial return on investment with effectiveness of CIRM-funded research; some federal agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health, have noted decreased effectiveness of programs when focus on financial returns to funder • Whatever California chooses to do, must realize that conditions of CIRM grants need to be competitive

General Principles for State IP Policies

• CIRM recommendations are in line with general principles we are likely to recommend for state-funded research in final report, which include: • Consistency with the Bayh-Dole Act • Creating incentives for commerce in California from statefunded research to the greatest extent possible • Encouraging timely publication of results • Diligent development of IP into products that benefit the public • CIRM may want to adopt interim policies guided by this interim report and final policies after review of final report to state in December 2005

Recommendations for CIRM IP Policies (1)
1. 2. Permit grantees to own IP rights from CIRM-funded research. Require that grantees (individuals, institutions, or both) provide a plan describing how IP will be managed for the advancement of science and California public benefit. Grant basic research funds without requiring that grantees commit to providing a revenue stream to the state. If, however, a revenue stream develops over time, revenues will be reinvested in research and education. Generally, make CIRM-developed research tools widely available to other researchers. Require diligent efforts to develop CIRM-funded IP into therapeutics and diagnostics that can benefit the public.

3.

4.

5.

Recommendations for CIRM IP Policies (2)
6. Retain within CIRM Bayh-Dole-like rights to step in if the owner of IP is not undertaking appropriate steps to transfer technology to benefit the public. Leave license particulars to the owner who is in the best position to judge how best to ensure that discoveries are made widely available through commercialization or otherwise. Reserve the right to use IP by or on behalf of CIRM. Establish and maintain a CIRM database to track all IP generated through CIRM funding.

7.

8. 9.

CA’s Research Machine Powerful
University of California Research Centers: Biotechnology (n=138)

Industry Clusters Around Research Centers

Wealth Created in Silicon Valley By Stanford Alums Is Staggering
• Of the 150 largest* publicly traded companies in the Valley, 37 Stanford alumni-founded companies (25% of total) represent
– $453 billion in market value (46% of total)** $138 billion in revenue (47% of total)

–

Read-Rite
* Ranked by 2003 revenues ** As of March 31, 2004


								
To top