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 : Roger's 1998 Short Picks -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill Wexler who wrote (850)	1/16/1998 10:28:00 PM
From: tcarnes	Respond to of 18691

dear bill will look to 20 and try again i need a pt. to make money the news of thurs. i feel will temp. rise the stock to the low 20s. cut my losses and get more at the top. say 22 or 23 and then ride it down. lets see what develops next week. i may have made a big mistake to cover. will raise my share position by 30% and then ride it down to cover my losses. i know it will go to 0 i don't want to go broke waiting or have all my eggs in one basket. to many other shorts to make money from short term. happy hunting tj.

To: Bill Wexler who wrote (850)	1/16/1998 10:38:00 PM
From: Luke	Respond to of 18691

Hi Bill, BVF looks interesting and I am just starting to look into it a bit. Asensio has good insights. Question: Do you know much about FDA rules? DO you have any speculation why HMR did not challenge BVF on Cardizem under Waxman-Hatch? I realize that HMR could certainly sue BVF for patent infringement and seek an injunction at any time upon marketing, but why don't they challenge BVF under W-H and get a declaratary judgement now? Is it not worth the expense? Asensio claims that generic Cardizem won't be around for a while yet anyway. Do you know if there are any advantages to not listing a patent in the Orange Book under Waxman-Hatch, or not challenging a generic manufacturer under W-H? TIA Luke