the first sort of public part of that process is what's called a markman hearing. the markman hearing is it's in front of the judge, in this case in the delaware courts and two sides come forward with the key terms and the patents at issue here. >> okay. >> and their independent definitions of what those terms should mean. in this case it was a couple terms. both sides brief the judge then argue the point. there are two perspectives on these. what the judge said was within 30 days give or take he thought he would be able to deliver a -- >> let's say someone listens to you today and buy the stock and this comes down. is it the end of the world if you lose given the -- >> not in the markman hearing. the process now will continue, and we have a trial scheduled in front of the judge in february of 2014. >> oh, okay, now i have the schedule. >> and then in we go to trial, and who knows, but if we go to trial, after that, then the judge will rule on whether the patents are valid or not. remember, we have five patents in this fight. >> right. >> only one of them has to be

markman. dr. markman is a defendant of the california medical board because he had been treating his daughter at home with propofol three times weekly for genital pain for at least five years minimum. >> yeah, but dr. murray -- >> more than 500 times. >> dr. murray, i actually know about that case, and the medical equipment that that man has been using was far more advanced than the medical equipment you had. >> that's not true, because the medical equipment dr. schafer says in his report he has been told by the man that he has those medical equipment. no one has verified that he has the equipment. but the fact is, dr. schafer finds no contention at all with this man using propofol at home and he is doing this concurrently while he's also having me impaled to the cross. >> you would agree, sir, that -- when you first heard about michael jackson wanting propofol, you yourself thought this was highly unusual. >> i did not like it. >> let me ask you about your appeal. i know you are very hopeful on t

markman. dr.arkman is a defendant of the california medical board because he has been treating his daughter at home with propofol three times weekly for genital pain for at least five years minimum. >> yeah, but, dr. murray -- >> more than 500 times. >> dr. murray, i actually know about that case, and the medical equipment that that man has been using was far more advanced than the medical equipment you had. >> that's not true because the medical equipment dr. schafer says in his report he has been told by the man that he has those medical equipment. no one has verified that he has the equipment. but the fact is, dr. schafer finds no contention at all with this man using propofol at home, and he is doing this concurrently while he's also having me impaled to the cross. >> you would agree, sir, that -- but when you first heard about michael jackson wanting propofol, you yourself thought this was highly unusual. >> i did not like it. >> let me ask you about your appeal. i know you are very hopeful o

>> not in the markman hearing.he profit the pattern continues and if we have a trial set in february. if we go to trial. who knows, but if we go to trial after that, then the judge will rule on whether the patents are valid or not. remember, we got five patents in this fight. only one of them has to be sustained in order for us to continue to have hos spir ra off the mark. >> one last thing. >> well, we will be providing new data at one of the other drugs. that drug is called interig. it helps mashts with bowl surgery get out quicker. the new data presented at that meeting is in patients who have had ratd cal krisectomy. those patients have a hard time getting their bowls post-surgically. the data will be presented is how does our drug get out of the hospital quicker? >> we want to stay tuned to this, we think staying out of the hospital is integral to the whole healthcare system. obviously, to saveing life, too. that's mike bonney, the ceo of cubist pharmaceuticals. there is lots of interpretations on the web. lot

question markman guest: i really like him, when i agree with him, and in that case i do not.i see in the report that he has conflated legal immigration and illegal immigration, put that in the same category and disregarded the cost it takes to support those families. i have identified the cost. it is cheaper to sustain any legal family and a legal family because there are more of a benefit. it will cost more money. we know that. he is not talking about the cost. when you conflate the two and extrapolate for rate into the distance, separate out legal from illegal, and put the cost in the situation. i think he is talking about the extract related benefits. -- extrapolated benefits. who will pay the social security and the medicare question that there is no solution in that. host: back to twitter, it says is e-verify not a de facto federal work herman -- permit? guest: i had not thought about it like that. i like when the terminology comes out. not quite. someone just identify that can legally and lawfully work in the united states. it does not verify that the person who you are