News 
Market Data 
Discover
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Great thoughts, LocWolf! In fact, you even sound enthusiastic and optimistic, which is both surprising and heartening.
Thanks Goodsport. Yes, perhaps that would be the only course of action.
Yes, which is exactly what Intel did when they attempted to steal our patent by modifying it slightly and then rebranding it as their own at the USPTO. But this time HDC wouldn't need to file an interference patent.
Thanks LocWolf. Modifying HDC's patent to create a totally new patent sounds like a good idea, but that would require experts like Guyon and Weston working for HDC, unless Dr. Hauser brings in a new team that could do something like that. Extending the expiration date on the existing patent also seems like a plausible strategy. A third option may be to create new diagnostic tests using SVM-RFE, and market them, which should be within Dr. Hauser's area of expertise. Of course, the forth option would be to collect licensing revenue from existing users of the technology. I am really curious to hear what Dr. Hauser has to say.
Digdeeper17, no shares have traded hands precisely because the stock is currently not tradeable in a retail market. As to your other point, that "the biggest player only owed 2 mill", Neogenomics paid HDC $6.6 million.
I know that you still see no value here, but one well-credentialed expert in the field, who just became our new CEO, does.
Not investment advice but I would forewarm anyone to resist leaving GTC sell orders at one price. So if you own shares at $0.03 put a small order @ $0.03 and wait, we've seen crazier things happen in the OTC dumpster. The fact we have a recent 8k, had HDVY not been on "Expert market", this would have ran @ least 5x,10x etc. I know I would have added.
I see. Mankind, you do seem to have an expertise in this area. I do note that in my brokerage account, there is a footnote next to the price of HDVY stock which says in effect, that the price listed is not necessarily the actual price. So even though the price we see is near zero, that doesn't mean that the price paid by broker-dealers is so cheap. If I were to place a buy order, not knowing the real price, it may never get filled, as the public cannot view the actual price. I agree that this is not just disgusting, but anti-competitive under the guise of protecting investors. Look, a simple disclaimer like "buy at your own risk", or "buyer beware" would have been sufficient to protect investors, if that's really all that they were trying to do.
Actually, nothing under the current rule 15c2-11 restricts us mouth-breathers from buying this or any expert stock (unless fraud).
Fact is, the rule is a restriction on MM's prop trading these for personal benefit. Thing is if you post a day order to buy say @ $0.01, MM should automatically go bid there to represent your order (solicited). Next day MM is still bid $0.01 but your day order cancelled, the MM would be liable for a SEC violation. So plain and simple, the $$ sunk into technology @ otc MM divisions is tiny and often times with clients entering and cancelling orders, can present a liability.
Now if HDVY were trading 50m shares per day, you can bet that these MM's firm would be tripping over each other to capture ALL the orderflow and our current restriction would be lifted. This disgusts me as it's anti-competitive, nanny state BS hiding under the guise of "Protecting our clients". Let some soy boy who was gifted a trust to start a hedge fund, gobble up cheap shares.
You bring a very interesting point of view to the table, mankind. Once we learn that HDC has a viable business plan with a growing roster of licensees, it would not be surprising to see institutional investors and HNW individuals take an interest. At near zero, someone of modest means could easily afford to buy all of the available outstanding shares. Then, if HDC were to ever introduce a new diagnostic test using SVM-RFE, that would be a game changer. Welome aboard!
Ou71764, my hunch is that Dr. Hauser is working as we speak to complete the necessary steps to get HDVY relisted on the OTC market. When that day arrives, there should be ample opportunity for investors to add more. A lot will depend on Dr. Hauser's vision for the company, so I am eager to hear what he has to say. Good luck to you, and to all patient longs!
I concur with all of your observations and conclusions, ou71764. A formal communication to shareholders from Dr. Hauser will probably answer a lot of our questions. But already, our despair has turned into hope.
Correction: I mistakenly attributed a quote to Zenos in post 18362. That quote was actually from YankeesFanInOhio from the yahoo board. My apologies.
Yes, I believe that we are entitled to know the facts surrounding HDC's sudden, inexplicable withdrawal of its presumably winnable case against Intel, and settling out of court for such a paltry sum. Were the alleged damages not provable? Were the provable damages not great enough to justify a continuation of the case? What is the answer?
Yes, Dr. Hauser must be looking at a clear pathway to make HDC profitable. Otherwise, why accept a performance based position from a company whose stock is virtually worthless?
I think that my point could be made clearer if I rephrased it. First, the idea that HDC lawyers could have claimed lost licensing revenue as part of the damages they were seeking from Intel is now a pointless argument to make, as HDC withdrew and the case was dismissed with prejudice. However, a compelling argument could be made with the USPTO that, even though HDC ostensibly owned the patents to SVM-RFE the whole time, they were not free to monetize it through licensing, because this ownership was tied up in dispute with Intel. Afterall, what company would have forked out money to HDC for a license, when it was not clear who the real owner was? Also, and I think that Zenos made this point, even if the patent is set to expire next year, infringing companies (and there are many) could be compelled to pay licensing fees to HDC for all of the prior years of infringement and up to the date of patent expiration in 2025. The fact that Intel settled is a testament to the validity of HDC's claim of exclusive rights, which could be used as leverage in compelling other infringers to pay up or be sued. We do not know at this point what Dr. Hauser's gameplan is for HDC, which could include not only signing licensing deals (creating a revenue stream), getting HDC compliant with the IRS and SEC (which is a pathway to being relisted on the OTC), but potentially developing new diagnostic tests using SVM-RFE (after all, this is within his area of expertise). I remain very hopeful and now see and agree with Mr. Fromholzer's parting words that HDC has a bright future in the field of AI and medical diagnostics. Not since Dr. Barnhill, has HDC had a CEO who was also an expert in this field.
Yes, I believe that we have one, which is the most important one covering SVM-RFE. I think that a good case could be made with the USPTO to extend the expiration date of this patent because HDC was denied effective use to license the technology during the period of years when the ownership was in dispute with Intel. Eventually, HDC prevailed and the exclusive rights to SVM-RFE technology were awarded to HDC. Incidentally, these lost licensing revenues could have been claimed as incidental/comsequential amages in HDC's lawsuit against Intel, which, alone, could have exceeded the announced settlement amount. IMHO.
If you read the 8-k filing carefully, you would see that Dr. Hauser's first priority for HDC is to become SEC compliant. Of course, this is the pathway back to the OTC and retail trading of the stock.
Also, gleaned from the filing is that Dr. Hauser's salary contains a performance based incentive in the form of HDVY shares.
We are not privy to the exact terms of the settlement as it was negotiated out of court.
Perhaps you may recall that there was a settlement with Intel?
It's alive! 😊
|
Followers
|
129
|
Posters
|
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
18398
|
|
Created
|
10/08/05
|
Type
|
Free
|
| Moderators | |||
