Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Robert Rose who wrote (96784)	3/18/2000 10:54:00 AM
From: Sam Sara	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 164684

Re: patent issues, I agree with you that there are concerns, but those existed well before Clinton/Blair statement. This is apparently a murky legal area, of which I know little about. It is one of the issues that caused me to miss the initial runup in CRA, which is funny in itself- a little knowledge hurt me there. I am speculating on investor psychology here- two factors are prior biotech meltdowns in 1990s that many remember and lack of intellectual comfort by many with technology. This injects an extra degree of FUD into sector contributing to recent decline. Who knows what will happen next, slow recovery or basing with a seed event to start next acceleration. What is intriguing to me is how old this technology really is- there is a fantastic book about the history of molecular biology (The Eighth Day of Creation : Makers of the Revolution in Biology), which is out of print, but well-worth reading. It covers events until the late 1970's, which is when the technology that exists now began to be created. Cloning, sequencing, and PCR all happened in late 70s to 1990 time frame. In internet time, antediluvian....Now we get another spurt of investor interest. Are things different this time??? Yes, but I think time to market here is on a much different scale (it's not like writing software), but once you get there, money flow should be steady and large.

To: Robert Rose who wrote (96784)	3/18/2000 1:29:00 PM
From: Bill Harmond	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

The severity of the sell-off in technology (including biotechnology) was due to short positions by the most aggressive players in S&P 500 futures. This rally in the large caps was driven by short-covering. The volatility says that. The short covering was sparked by real new demand because of falling long-term rates. The most aggressive players had to sell stock (technology and biotechnology) and face margin calls because of selling to meet the futures losses. Celera and the others got caught in the middle of this by Clinton/Blair. I think all that was true about Celera three weeks ago is still true today. The fact is they are the leading source of sequencing information because they discover it faster than anyone else and they add value to decipher it. I think Celera will show results earlier than the group, because their income comes drom their clients' research and discover phases...far up the pipline from drug revenues. I think the leading geonomics stocks are in an investment league with the leading Internet stocks.