Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
I am Freakin agreeing with you 100%! that's why i tell everyone keep their feet on the ground, these people have their own agenda.
In other words everyone, keep y'all feet on the ground.
Nobody really has a clue as to what taks if any is happening. and to follow this sporatic stock by a chart is even more clueless.
I tried to explain to you months ago how disclosure works in the public interest, with regards to emails you said Maza sent to you. I am happy you now understand what i understood. When i read this paragraph i said to myself "this wording is all to familiar".
" Maza knows how to direct the company.Hes got a sharpe pencil.I say let the man do his work no need to take up his time when in fact he cannot and will not disclose information not already released to the public".
Yeah, the stock will pop at some point but for immediate future .0040 here we go.
hopefully.
how much pressure could no news withstand?
no, not defending you; nothing said between you both applied to either of you personally. so happens you were on the side of reason this time.
You must have written to the courts on his behalf? Deals comments are fair.
Agree, the Law has judged him Deals comments are fair. enough said.
Okay, fair enough.
there is no logic he post just because.....
Deals, i thought we had this discussion before you need to post the email in its entirety.
okay, i agree.
in all honesty, would intellect need a full time CEO(termed by others) as such, since its business is not sales or manufacturing but patents?
i second that motion.
or i could be grasping at straws.....
would this be a plot for ILNS damages? may be the release is just to keep shareholder's confidence up while the company builds a case for damages and yes; may be the plot to keep pps down is apart of it?
Honestly Dr. Chain i never ever said anything bad about you or Mr. Maza :) not! you are the best. Lol!
Sign
NOPRESSURE
crap; i had high hopes before you said that. Lol!
i just love to hear "and it is so ordered"
Deals i am not sure you are interpreting transcript properly. Notice when J.Oing reads plaintiff arguments; he then says to Defendant i think that's what they are saying. Then when he reads contract he says that's what it says, however don't get that confused with i have decided what the facts are because guess what? those are forth coming through the discovery stage. Then he also goes on to to say what the Defendants are saying their arguments
are also. We are forming our conclusions based on what he is saying which is confused with what he has not yet decided. However my reading into it i have determined its positive for us.
J.Oing is just determining the issues he is not agreeing with anyone yet; he's leaning towards Plaintiff's first cause of action as in thinking that Defendants do have a case to answer in terms of Breach of contract; not that he agrees that there is a Breach.
2. With regard to the second cause of Plaintiff's argument (Breach of the implied terms resulting in Bad faith) he's in other words not leaning towards it for now that could be determined later when they get into the meat of the case. However i do think Pfizer is dead where they stand.
I like how short shapiro arguments are; no doubt its signaling a simple case to the Judge and that he (judge) recognizes that. Shapiro suprised J.Oing with his short claim insomuch as J.Oing makes reference to it and henceforth calls the case a simple one Rightly so because the Plaintiffs arguments are in the contract; contract makes the case for Plaintiff.
Pfizer never cancelled the agreement; they did not comply with milestone payment because there was no patent(their contention) issued that triggered such a payment, however ILNS considered the agreement cancelled when the milestone payment was not complied with. I stand to be corrected. In other words the patent issued included compounds not instituted in the contract.
The short of it, Summary Judgement a test for Pfizer to see if their case worth a crap; well, after that summary dismissal; i say we look for a settlement from them. 'Pfizer done, stick a fork in em'
That's very funny Deals, keen sense of humor!
Going through transcripts now..........
Likely the ruling is against (the movant) Pfizer.
the issues facing ILNS has to do with contract, Patents, Trials, funding, and whether those trials will yield any approval for the sale of a drug/s. it has less to do with part time Maza and the company being a filing cabinet. Whether Maza is part time or not or whatever other negatives may be the key is Patents and approval for sale of a drug.
thank you.
excuse me if am a little behind the eight ball but would the Patents court that is also Federal and is "just for that" also hear disputes of a contract nature? yes or no?
excuse me if am a little behind the eight ball but would the Patents court that is also Federal and is "just for that" also hear disputes of a contract nature? yes or no?
I await the best answer to my response......
Would that court that "is just for that" also hear disputes of a contract nature?
we don't know if they are trying to bankrupt ILNS, that issue is not at dispute and so that ruling is not what we await. we will see what it is soon and hopefully it goes our way. Remember its not a shot unless the Referee calls it.
"Stiffing someone you have a contract with is not the proper place to dispute patents there is a court just for that"
Would that court that is "just for that" also hear disputes of a contract nature?
we await decision.................
Roagtraders POST# 11684
What intrigues me also is that the attorney for Pfizer is no slouch either, he's a partner in his firm and has handled some big cases. If this lawsuit was simply about a measly settlement (say $2m), why would you have this guy defending you? His fees will be more than that when all is said and done:
Yes but this comment may have a deeper definition than what even he understands it to be. Remember the window for these inventions i think is 7 years before anyone can create a generic version of it, and so i think about this payment if i make it i have no further complaint if after say one year a generic maker copies it and put it on the market and that generic maker is sued and in their defence they say that the so call patent is not really a legitimate invention, where would that leave the hundreds of millions i have invested? that generic maker may have the same grounds of Pfizer's now argument to defend itself. I don't see a better way for Pfizer to test and see if Patent holds water. I am an ILNS shareholder but i see issues from both sides and do wish for the success of the company.