Member Info for jackdaw99

Well done you! Here, have a scouts badge for your anorak.

999. That's got to mean something.

It happens every month Applegarth. Has been for some time.

I'm afraid many, many deals are not shown for what they are and the intermediaries (market makers) have lots of tricks to stimulate volume ... which is one of their main interests, along with the biggest difference they can achieve between buying and selling (although usually very short-term because of their "job description"). Delays in bb reporting IMO have very little to do with it but delays in reporting big trades (allowed with limits by the market) can distort what is happening behind the scenes a great deal.

In this case someone/something wants to buy low and hence wants to fool us that most deals are sells. Then you get scared and sell, while the smart Alecs are taking shares off you at a discount. And sometimes they want you believe that the deals are buys when they are actually sells, so we all buy, price goes up, and their mate in the city sells several % higher than he would otherwise. Then they buy each drinks on Chelsea, The Hamptons, etc etc

Payday. What's your own estimate of current value, if you discount any penalties as being kicked forward by a year or two .... by which time, in the great scheme of things, they may well be negligible?

I bought three smallish chunks this am - all showing as sells. Since most of my buying has been mid-teens, this is a good opportunity for a useful average-down. I wouldn't be surprised if it recovers to double figures for Xmas.

Yes, let's hope we all get a nice present...

Agreed. Also, if you are onboard already, it's showing as a sell. No surprise there.

In a nutshell, it seems that nothing happens to any party until the appeal is decided. Worst case is that our revenues continue to grow in rest-of-world then, after two more years, we have to cough up something. Best case is that appeal rules some (I doubt all IMO) of the Illumina IP invalid, in which case even less to pay. Personally, I doubt that Roche for one will take this passively.

Given the subjectivity, and the fact that overturning some of these decisions would be a severe blow to Illumina, I wouldn't be surprised to see TMO pressing for an appeal, if allowable. Also, I believe it is the case in the UK that, if any one party decides to appeal, then all parties are subjects to the appeal and, of course, the duration of the appeal prevents any decisions of the initial case being put into operation, which gives more time for NIPT to consolidate and, even, start turning a profit, as an appeal would surely last up to two years??

Yes, but the problem is that the law doesn't deal in "facts" but in interpretations. I'm sure you've read the whole verdict so you can see just how much room there was for interpretation. To some extent I agree with the company that Illumina were not on rock solid ground (with regard to originality) and they were, to some indefinable quantity, fortunate that it went their way. It does seem to me that the decision was swayed a great deal by the "quality" (=reputation?) of the expert witnesses and I'm really not sure that Prem's lawyers did the best job they could here. As with so many decisions open to interpretations, I do think it could have gone a different way with different people involved (witnesses, lawyers, and judge) and I am not sure the co can be so roundly condemned for "getting it wrong" when it had a significant chance of being right.

Is that a significant date, apart from being a birthday?

I don't think it would be a big problem, but I am not a sequencer technician.

Agreed. There is a fourth alternative (to Flipper's 3) which is to switch technology .... if they can find something unprotected. Perhaps that's part of the "diversification" they have mentioned several times?

Agreed.

I'm not sure you can separate out the constituent processes like that. Here's what the judge writes: "Discussion 507. In my judgment, the crucial question is where, in substance, is the Alternative Proposed Process to be used? The answer is the United Kingdom. In substance, the �method of detecting a nucleic acid of foetal origin in a sample� (Lo 1), the �method of detection of foetal aneuploidy� (Quake) and the �method for performing prenatal diagnosis� (Lo 2/3) would be performed by laboratories in the UK. The blood test would be taken in the UK, the sequencing machine would be operated in the UK and the information so obtained would be transmitted to Taiwan for a pre-determined set of automated computer processes to be applied to it. The output of the computer processing would be sent back to the United Kingdom for use in the United Kingdom. 508. As Aldous LJ said in Menashe, it does not matter where the computer is situated. The process is operated, in substance in the UK. I accept Illumina�s submission that any other result would make it far too easy to avoid infringement of patents of this nature, given the ease of digital transmission and the ability to off-shore computer processing." Are you suggesting doing only "method of detecting a nucleic acid of foetal origin in a sample" in the UK lab and rest overseas?? Doesn't seem viable to me.

Unless I read it wrongly, it seems the judgement says "no". Have you read it?

Helcon, Thanks for that. it seems that Premaitha will also not be allowed do do tests in, say, the UK and send them outside for processing, in order to get around the patents.

However, what IS true that several of us may have to pool funds to afford one of Greggs Christmas Pasties at this rate.