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.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Amateur Traders Corner -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tom Hua who wrote (6787)	3/4/2001 5:31:00 PM
From: Fundamentls	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 19633

Tom, You might not need to worry as much about Dr. Huber's asset allocation. He sold about 11 times what you found, about 6.1 million shares in total, or about 7% of his holdings. Still not enough to be concerned about. In addition to the 500k public sale there was a 5.1 million private sale. insidertrader.com I've spent the afternoon looking at CORV and I see another red flag that wasn't previously mentioned, at least on this thread (or if it was, I missed it). That's the patent infringement suit by CIEN. Regardless of the merits, this would have to give some pause to potential customers thinking of committing to CORV, or result in demands for indemnification that could be economically difficult. It's likely to drag on for some time, could force disclosure of some of CORV's technology that's now under wraps, and could cost a lot of money and management attention. And there's of course the concern about the merits of the suit. Obviously lawsuits like this are a dime a dozen on the technology frontier, but with such high stakes, the history of Huber at CIEN, and the absence of the usual strongly worded "we believe the lawsuit is without merit" language in CORV's SEC filings, I'd have to rate this one as more than a passing concern. In fact CORV filed a counterclaim alleging "invalidity and/or unenforceability of the CIEN patents." Maybe this was just a legal maneuver but I would have been a lot happier if they had said they didn't think they had infringed, rather than that saying there wasn't anything TO infringe. Overturning an existing patent is a tougher argument than showing you didn't infringe - unless you did in fact infringe. Insider sales in the 6 weeks since the lockup ended totaled about 32 million, or about 10% of the outstanding. This occurred at a time when the price was roughly half the IPO price. Granted a lot of this was venture funds, many of whom may have hedged and effectively sold much higher. But many appears to be individuals. About 250 sellers in all. I've never done any formal comparisons of post-lockup filings but my instincts tell me this is more than usual. Would be interested in comments by others on this. The comparative chart tells me that the market thinks CIEN is going to win this battle, whether on legal grounds or in the marketplace. Of course, big money can be wrong and they may well be here. But right now it looks like big money was wrong to jump on CORV at the IPO price or any other price since. siliconinvestor.com I'll watch CORV from the sidelines for now. For one thing, it takes a lot to make me want to go long on anything in this market. I want to see an order from a customer (preferably non greenfield) that doesn't have an equity interest in CORV. The technology looks very good - but if there is one thing the market has taught us in the past year, it is that good technology is not enough. Regards, Fund