The disappearing content issue may have been a computer glitch on my end, for all I know. I agree censorship by MNTA is ridiculous; I was being a little facetious.
All we've got to go on is Ms. Decker's word, since Momenta will not confirm what Shea said. I do not know if she records these interviews or what is standard for journalists doing this kind of work.
I believe I've mentioned the disparity in molecular weight between Lovenox and Lupenox. Using Momenta's tools to characterize something so obviously different is silly. We know there is no way Lupenox can meet the criteria, but Teva has pretty unequivocally stated that they think t-nox does. Again, the Lupenox process predates the Momenta patents at issue. I can buy your contention that it's Lupenox and Teva is playing a head game to create obstacles for Momenta up to a point, but beyond that point there are potential consequences to the game that might make it a losing proposition, and Teva is not so dumb as not to see those consequences . . .
Perhaps Teva officials have not yet passed the point of no return in terms of liability to shareholder lawsuits for lying about this issue, but they have to be getting close. As Peter's analysis points out, it's 15 cents per share to Teva, so these would be material lies, wouldn't you think?
If it is a head game, I laud the suit because it should hasten the process of smoking it out, and remove the overhang we all speak of a little more quickly. Fight a head game with a head game. But again, the outcome of the Lupenox path for Teva is too easy to predict in terms of its ultimate failure. I never believed Teva is that stupid, and this suit and subsequent statements by Shea and by Teva only add to that belief.
Maybe we should wager a dinner on the issue of t-enox being Lupenox. Since we are rather far apart geographically, we may have to settle for a pizza delivery or something.
Regards, RockRat
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
