Replies to post #273536 on Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[jessellivermore]

TTE...

Sorry i missed the part in my post where I mentioned "fairness" My post was about property (ownership)..Guess you missed that point.

":>) JL

[ggwpq]

TTE, you hit the nail on the head. Du wants "cheap drugs for the masses". Did she want it so bad hence made her commit procedural and factual errors that are so out of line even CAFC judges that want "cheap drugs for the masses" can't go along with? That's the $6.4 B question.

[postes]

The judge issue is an intangible...if the panel of judges we get respect the law we win..the chance we get 3 judges that were appointed by a republican are slim...if every judge appointed by Obama or Clinton would uphold the judgement then the odds of winning are low single digits....for us to win it most likely has to be 1 maybe 2 judges appointed by Democrats that will follow the rules of law....when a judge comes to work he has to come to work as a judge( nothing else)

[HinduKush]

TTE
I also am sick of this idea of something for nothing these ideologues on the left promulgate with Du type judgements.
Everyone wants cheap drugs god knows but if we want effective drugs someone has to develop and test them. So if their honors want to take a short sighted political view and kill the goose that lays the golden eggs - fine. But lets not bitch and moan when money moves abroad and we pay big sums to import it or should we tax our citizens to develop drugs..As it stands almost 90% plus of major phase 3 drug trials of innovative life saving drugs are industry sponsored. This appeals court judgement will be a seminal message to BP, more so for its allowance or otherwise, of a fickle flawed Du judgement that cynically allows an end around REDUCE-IT that it acknowledges and then permits anyway de facto.
HK

[Invest83838]

Well Said Elf

[rafunrafun]

T -

If we get judges who care mostly about cheap drugs for the masses, it's over. Fairness won't matter.

Isn't there a simple solution for that? Pretty sure you know my idea to address that.

[rafunrafun]

Important post, IMO.

TTE wrote (which I fully agree with) :

If we get judges who care mostly about cheap drugs for the masses, it's over. Fairness won't matter

Conversely, if our judges rule strictly on law (without societal / political / ideological / social-justice-warrior (SJW) like biases), IMO our chances of winning are well above 90%.

But that's a big IF. How do we (Amarin) remove some of those preconceived biases? The answer lies within TTE's important message:

If we get judges who care mostly about cheap drugs for the masses, it's over. Fairness won't matter

Cheap drugs for the masses - how can we (Amarin) persuade a SJW judge that generics (SPECIFICALLY in Amarin's case, not in general) will not be much cheaper (if cheaper at all) and certainly will not get to the masses?

Jonathan Singer can't really say that, but who/what can?

Amicus Briefs!

There 100% must be one filed by a reputable source debunking the cheap/masses narrative and citing the ICER report!

Major problem would be addressed.