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.

Pastimes : The Justa & Lars Honors Bob Brinker Investment Club -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Allan Harris who wrote (14494)	6/16/2000 12:05:00 AM
From: marc ultra	Respond to of 15132

Allan re<<<<My charts show ENMD has completed 5 waves down from the 101 high on March 1, with oscillator divergences indicating that a break out above the trend regression channels down from that peak will be a BUY signal. That break out will come at about 25-26 in the next few sessions. If it happens, minimum target is 55-60, the previous Wave 4 peak, with a stop below 20 for a very nice risk:reward ratio. Curing cancer would be a bonus.>>> All those waves are making me seasick<g>. As to fundamentals they've been kept down by an irrelevant spurious patent lawsuit, a small secondary offering and a weak market for small biotechs. Should get some early results on Endostatin late in the year which are likely to show some anti-angiogenic activity but most tumors eventually growing through it. Continuous infusion dosing trial starting in Amsterdam likely to show more dramatic results than the current bolus dosing requested by the FDA to confirm safety. All reports indicate complete absence of toxicity. Angiostatin trials are underway and will be combined with radiotherapy fairly early as lack of toxicity is shown. Also oral 2me2 trials underway for breast cancer. Additionally getting royalty payments on thalidomide from Celgene. Just requires some time Marc

To: Allan Harris who wrote (14494)	6/16/2000 2:51:00 AM
From: Jeffrey D	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15132

Allan, perhaps this is what the DOJ had in mind with their case against MSFT..... hundreds of class action lawsuits. Looks like someone's favorite special interest group, trial lawyers, stand to make some big bucks and the government has paved the way for them. Jeff << Microsoft Faces Broader Private Antitrust Claims, Lawyers Say By James Rowley Washington, June 15 (Bloomberg) -- Microsoft Corp. faces a renewed attack by consumers who are suing the company on their own, even as the company fights the government case that has resulted in a court order that would split it in two. Lawyers representing more than 27 class-action lawsuits against Microsoft said they have asked a judge overseeing the cases to approve an amended complaint that would include allegedly anticompetitive acts dating back to 1991, before the period covered by the judge's order in the government antitrust case. The proposed amended complaint will be made public tomorrow in Baltimore when lawyers for the company and the plaintiffs meet with the judge named to oversee the cases consolidated for pre- trial discovery, said Michael Hausfeld, one of the class-action lawyers leading the case. U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz, who presided over private lawsuits accusing Honda Motor Co. of withholding automobile deliveries to dealers who refused to pay kickbacks to company executives, is overseeing pre-trial motions for 27 cases. Motz's caseload will grow as other cases that meet the qualifications are added to the multi-district litigation docket, said Stanley Chesley, a Cincinnati lawyer who is also spearheading the effort. A total of 137 cases seeking triple damages have been filed against Microsoft in 34 states and the District of Columbia. Most of the cases allege consumers were overcharged for Windows because of Microsoft's monopoly. The company has argued that most of the consumer lawsuits are invalid because consumers don't purchase Windows directly from Microsoft. Such claims by indirect purchasers are barred in all but 15 states. The company's argument prevailed in Oregon yesterday, where a state judge dismissed a complaint. Old Charges The allegations consolidated in the amended complaint aren't necessarily new. The company has faced allegations of antitrust violations in the past. In January, Microsoft agreed to settle a $1.6 billion lawsuit by Caldera Inc., alleging that it used monopoly power to crush a rival operating system to its MS-DOS, a precursor to Windows. Caldera, a privately held company based in Orem, Utah, had accused Microsoft of taking illegal steps to keep its DR-DOS off the market. In 1994, the software giant settled a U.S. Justice Department lawsuit alleging, among other things, that it forced computer makers to install MS-DOS by charging manufacturers a fee for each unit they shipped, regardless of whether the machine contained the Microsoft product. The company agreed to stop charging the fee, which had been imposed as a condition for licensing MS DOS. The hearing before Motz will take place as the company and the U.S. Justice Department continue their legal sparring over which court will hear the software giant's appeal of the breakup order issued last week in Washington by U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson. The Justice Department has asked Jackson to certify Microsoft's appeal for direct review by the U.S. Supreme Court. Microsoft has filed its appeal with an appellate court in Washington, the same one that previously ruled in its favor in a case over allegations it violated the consent decree by bundling the Internet Explorer web browser into Windows 95. Business Restrictions Microsoft also asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to issue a stay that would suspend the judge's order imposing restrictions on its business, currently set to take effect September 5. The government has asked the appellate court to await taking any action before expected decision by Jackson to send the case to the Supreme Court. Microsoft countered today with a new brief, arguing that even if Jackson sends the Justice Department case to the nation's highest court, the companion case brought by 19 states must remain in the appeals court's jurisdiction because the law authorizing direct appeals to the Supreme Court does not cover that case. Microsoft is anxious for the appeals court to retain jurisdiction because it disagreed with Jackson's 1997 finding in the consent-decree litigation. Its lawyers frequently cite the 1998 decision by a three-judge panel that lifted an injunction imposed by Jackson requiring it to give computer makers a choice of installing a version of Windows without a browser. Shares of Microsoft rose 1 7/8 to 72 3/8 on the Nasdaq Stock Market.