InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 65
Posts 4847
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 10/19/2012

Re: None

Friday, 09/30/2016 10:44:30 AM

Friday, September 30, 2016 10:44:30 AM

Post# of 130502
.03555 now, and Now this is what happened in July when the Supreme Court denied the petition against AMBS. This should have been a great thing for AMBS.
I think I get it now....this "company" sued to stop AMBS using their method they thought they could pattent. Their petition to the Sumpre Court was denied. Seems this should have made things better for AMBS? And, of course, it committed substantial royalties to license the technology . Respondents launched their price-competing products shortly thereafter, targeting the same mar-kets and affirmatively trying to free-ride on Se-quenom’s investment . Respondent Ari-osa candidly told its investors that it would “draft on Sequenom’s efforts to go after the same geographies,” and its Chair- man testified about Ariosa’s “strategies of being a fast follower and letting your competitor educate the market around advantages to cell-free DNA, Thispredictably caused “price and market erosion,” Aria Diagnostics v. Sequenom , , and so Se-quenom has yet to achieve profitability on its invest-ment . 3. As a heavily-invested practicing entity, Se-quenom refused to license competitors. ....

Ahhhhh! The price is going up. Let's watch the market!
The trend is holding....I'll buy at the next consolidation!
Damn! I missed the consolidation. If I wait any longer, I won't be able to profit from the trend. Let's BUY!
Good thing I did not wa