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.
Anyone have any idea how high ELTP might go next year?
WHEN WAS THIS PREDICTION MADE??? i see no date, no way to tell.
http://money.cnn.com/quote/forecast/forecast.html?symb=ELTP
crush1128': i see no date, no way to tell when this prediction was made.
'THEBEAV': please post the link and the statement. thanks.
What is going on? The usual naked shorting by the MM or something dangerous?
Romans: i don't see it anywhere, but could you please tell me who wrote it? Someone "official" or just someone who felt like posting their opinion? Doesn't seem official to me and, like i said, contains several errors.
Romans: who wrote that? (typos, misspellings). Is there a link?
Also: It's not the worms that were strengthened, it's the silk. So far as i know.
For longs, the question is: assuming there is a big rise in PPS in January, will it last?
gs1000: this is fabulous news for longs imo, regardless of whether it's new news or old news. It validates that KBLB is the Real Deal, imo.
NBack711 : Not exactly--what aELmTPa said doesn't constitute an "ad hominem" argument. But regardless, i understand what you are trying to say.
But isn't his statement untrue? "Watson could announce they are buying us for $5 per share and the PPS will go up to 10 cents and then go back to 8 cents.......$4.92 below the buyout price."
If Watson or anyone else were to buy us out for $5 a share, wouldn't the PPS jump to $5 in that case? or $1 if the buyout price were $1, $2 if the buyout price were $2, etc?
aELmTPa, what you say here makes no sense:
"Watson could announce they are buying us for $5 per share and the PPS will go up to 10 cents and then go back to 8 cents.......$4.92 below the buyout price."
Will some knowledgeable person please comment on this?
aELmTPa: Looks like you don't have much confidence in the company. Why are you here?
Yes i did and they do claim to have a lot of oil and maybe that is true. BUT they also seem to need investors into the company (that's what their letter was about), presumably because they need more $ to actually get that oil out of the ground.
I hope so but it puts a jinx on it to say so. That description was once applied to a certain ship, with disastrous consequences...
I think it's great that our CEO keeps us in mind and cares enough to reassure us. I sure don't see that happening very often in other stocks.
COUCH:
This doesn't make any sense to me. If they want to protect people, why would they want to PROHIBIT a product that incorporates tamper resistant technologies???
Maybe the wording is just very awkward.
Is this legislation really saying: if there is a tamper-resistant product available, it would be forbidden to prescribe a non-tamper resistant product instead?
Louisa, great news. BUT WHY didn't Lanza state that ACT's stem cells ALREADY DO NOT DESTROY THE EMBRYO???!!! This fact needs to be repeated over and over again!
Hey Rayovac812,
Thanks for answering me. At the time, i was too freaked out to notice the subtle linguistic implications. Glad to hear that Bob (and maybe you, too) feel confident that 2013 is The Year For Commercialization! I think i heard Kim say that magic number too.
Bob, it appears to me that you made two mutually contradictory statements:
1. "I am speaking of Christmas 2050. That is how long it will take for KBLB to go into prodution".
2. "However, I will stand by what I said, FULL SCALE PRODUCTION IS COMING IN 2013".
Which is it? 2050 or 2013? I sure hope it's 2013!
why sell @ 0.20? don't you expect it to go much higher?
Could Natcore's "Absolute Black" fit in here?
Lasers: isn't $4.00 the minimum PPS to get on Nasdaq? (or in some cases $1.00)? So, wouldn't our PPS have to be either $4.00 or $1.00?
Supreme Court Will Decide Generics Case
New York Times
By EDWARD WYATT
Published: December 7, 2012
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court said on Friday that it would decide whether a pharmaceutical company should be allowed to pay a competitor millions of dollars to keep a generic copy of a best-selling drug off the market.
Ralph Neas, head of the Generic Pharmaceutical Association, said the case would alter the marketing of new generics.The case could settle a decade-long battle between federal regulators, who say the deals violate antitrust law, and the pharmaceutical industry, which contends that they are really just settlements of disputes over patents that protect the billions of dollars they pour into research and development.
Three separate federal circuit courts of appeal have ruled over the last decade that the deals were allowable. But in July a federal appeals court in Philadelphia — which covers the territory where many big drug makers are based — said the arrangements were anticompetitive.
Both sides in the case supported the petition for the Supreme Court to decide the case, each arguing that the conflicting appeals court decisions would inject uncertainty into their operations.
By keeping lower-priced generic drugs off the market, drug companies are able to charge higher prices than they otherwise could. Last year, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that a Senate bill to outlaw those payments would lower drug costs in the United States by $11 billion and would save the federal government $4.8 billion over 10 years.
Senator Charles E. Grassley, an Iowa Republican who co-sponsored the Senate bill, which never came to the floor for a vote, praised the decision.
The Federal Trade Commission first filed the suit in question in 2009. Jon Leibowitz, chairman of the F.T.C., said, “These pay-for-delay deals are win-win for the drug companies, but big losers for U.S. consumers and taxpayers.”
Generic drug makers say that the payments preserve a system that has saved American consumers hundreds of billions of dollars.
“This case could determine how an entire industry does business because it would dramatically affect the economics of each decision to introduce a new generic drug,” Ralph G. Neas, president of the Generic Pharmaceutical Association, said in a statement. “The current industry paradigm of challenging patents on branded drugs in order to bring new generics to market as soon as possible has produced $1.06 trillion in savings over the past 10 years.”
The case will review a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, which in the spring ruled in favor of the drug makers, Watson Pharmaceuticals and Solvay Pharmaceuticals. Watson had applied for federal approval to sell a generic version of AndroGel, a testosterone replacement drug made by Solvay.
While courts have long held that paying a competitor to stay off the market creates unfair competition, the pharmaceuticalscase is different because it involves patents, whose essential purpose is to prevent competition.
When a generic manufacturer seeks approval to market a copy of a brand-name drug, it also often files a lawsuit challenging a patent that the drug’s originator says prevents competition.
Last year, for the third time since 2003, the 11th Circuit upheld the agreements as long as the allegedly anticompetitive behavior that results — in this case, keeping the generic drug off the market — is the same thing that would take place if the brand-name company’s patent were upheld.
Two other federal circuit courts, the Second Circuit and the Federal Circuit, have ruled similarly. But in July, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals said that those arrangements were anticompetitive on their face and violated antitrust law.
The agreements are also affected by a peculiar condition in the law that legalized generic competition for prescription drugs. That law, known as the Hatch-Waxman Act, gives a 180-day period of exclusivity to the first generic drug maker to file for approval of a generic copy and to file a lawsuit challenging the brand-name drug’s patent.
Brand-name drug companies have taken advantage of that law, finding that they can settle the patent suit by getting the generic company to agree to stay out of the market for a period of time. Because that generic company also has exclusivity rights, no other generic companies can enter the market.
Michael A. Carrier, a professor at Rutgers School of Law-Camden, said that while there were provisions in the law under which a generic company could forfeit that exclusivity, “they really are toothless in practice.”
One wild card could still prevent the Supreme Court from definitively settling the question. In granting the petition to hear the case, the Supreme Court said that Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. recused himself, taking no part in the consideration or decision.
That opens the possibility that a 4-4 decision could result, upholding the lower court case that went against the F.T.C. and in favor of the drug makers. But it would leave the broader question for another day.
The case is Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharmaceuticals et al, No. 12-416.
Continuing to stay alive, i think he means. i.e. the company.
Generics article in today's NY Times "Generic Drug Makers See a Drought Ahead"
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/04/business/generic-drug-makers-facing-squeeze-on-revenue.html?pagewanted=all
With natural gas so cheap, there's less urgency for solar so less interest. But i hope it's not that. year end tax sales +higher taxes on cap gains so maybe some want to sell now. ????????????
You could write management and ask them.
first mike--How do you interpret this heading "PLASTIC MATERIAL, SYNTH RESIN/RUBBER, CELLULOS (NO GLASS)" ?
Kraig Biocraft Laboratories, Inc CIK#: 0001413119 (see all company filings)
SIC: 2820 - PLASTIC MATERIAL, SYNTH RESIN/RUBBER, CELLULOS (NO GLASS)
TOM REPLIED--here is complete dialogue
Hi Tom and Chuck,
We on the ihub board thought you would be interested in this article that came out today, in case it hasn't come to your attention already. There may be some valuable information that Natcore could use for/with their own black silicon tech:
http://phys.org/news/2012-11-team-side-illuminated-ultra-efficient-solar-cell.html
"The new cell architecture developed at the David Ben-Gurion National Solar Research Center at BGU can exceed an ultra-efficient 40 percent conversion efficien with intensities equal to 10,000 suns."
Best,
Elichen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TOM REPLIED
Hi Elichen,
Good to hear from you and thanks for the story.
I spoke to our scientific staff and this technology has no impact on us nor does it provide any opportunity for us. The report is referring to a very specialized triple junction cell made from materials other than silicon to which neither black silicon nor LPD silica apply.
Also, the BGU cell requires high concentration to work well. Our all quantum dot tandem cell is for normal sunlight levels.
I hope this information is helpful. Thanks for passing this on to us. We try to keep up on everything that's out there and it is always interesting to see these things.
Tom
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ELICHEN REPLIED
Hi Tom,
Thanks for your reply. An even more important question, that I neglected to ask, is: does their technology pose a competitive threat to Natcore's technology? I believe their efficiency is above 40%--but at what cost we don't know.
Best,
Elichen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TOM REPLIED
Elichen,
You are correct. We have no idea about the cost.
Also, efficiency is a very subjective concept. There is a big difference in measuring efficiency from a small device and efficiency on a real scalable cell that can be commercially produced. My guess is that they are a long way from that.
Tom
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ELICHEN REPLIED
We are all hoping that Natcore will be the Apple Computer of the Solar Industry!!! Do you think so?
Elichen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TOM REPLIED
Yes I do
~~~~~~~~~~
ELICHEN REPLIED
Excellent!
Thank you,
Elichen
If they have seen stable improvements in visual acuity--which, apparently, they have--maybe that means the cells are taking root in some way other than "engraftment".
Did Gary say something sort of like that?
I SENT THE FOLLOWING E-MAIL:
Subject heading: SOLAR ARTICLE from David Ben-Gurion National Solar Research Center at BGU
Hi Tom and Chuck,
We on the ihub board thought you would be interested in this article that came out today, in case it hasn't come to your attention already. There may be some valuable information that Natcore could use for/with their own black silicon tech:
http://phys.org/news/2012-11-team-side-illuminated-ultra-efficient-solar-cell.html
"The new cell architecture developed at the David Ben-Gurion National Solar Research Center at BGU can exceed an ultra-efficient 40 percent conversion efficien with intensities equal to 10,000 suns."
Best,
interstate:
Lanza said: "Using high resolution imaging technology, we have been observing evidence indicating that the transplanted RPE cells are getting to the right place in the sub-retinal space, engrafting and are apparently resurfacing areas of the retina with a new RPE layer," said Robert Lanza , M.D., ACT's chief scientific officer.
What makes you think he is speaking only of SMD and not also AMD?
Did anyone ask specifically if they have seen engrafting in AMD?
I WILL SEND THE ARTICLE AND/OR THE LINK TO CHUCK AND TOM, unless someone else has already done so.
'donfig47'--thanks, very good!
Ryan--Why do you think actual work--(i.e labor--involving long hours, commutes, bosses, anxiety about being fired, and all the other hassles of ordinary jobs)--should be taxed a whole bunch higher than just sitting at home basically gambling like we are doing???
If anything, it should be the other way around, imo.
I'm pretty sure the 30% would be only on that part of your income that is above $250,000. That's more than most "middle class" incomes. The intention is to target the very rich, who can well afford to pay their fair share.
The highest tax rate used to be much higher than 30% and the economy was doing great.
Now that expanded healthcare is here to stay for at least 4 more years, that should be Very Good for Elite's generics.
Please explain why it's good for Natcore.
Romans,
Thanks for the reminder. That does indeed make me feel much more confident!
You already don't have to read all the BS