Its not about making money is about accumulating more shares. If the sell and buy back it only costs them the commission.

You have to wonder if the people selling are not the same people buying them back to create an illusion of some big sell off. This causing other people to panic and sell so they can buy their shares cheap.

Did anyone ever think these guy are washing their shares. They sell them at what ever price they sell at and then buy them right back. That way they still have the shares at their original of price of .005 minus a commission and now they can sell when they want without reporting it.

Looks like the grinch stopped by Apple:

APPLE WATCH BAN: COMPANY NO LONGER SELLING THE NEWEST VERSIONS IN US AMID PATENT DISPUTE
The cheaper Apple Watch SE remains on sale but the ban affects the Apple Watch Series 6 and later, as well as Apple Watch Ultra
CNNWireBy David Goldman, CNN
Updated 1 hour ago
The clock has wound down on the newest Apple Watch after President Joe Biden declined to issue a last-minute, emergency action to keep the best-selling smartwatch on store shelves.

President Joe Biden had until the end of Christmas day to overturn a US International Trade Commission ruling that prevents Apple from selling the Apple Watch Series 9 and Apple Watch Ultra 2, among other newer models, because they violate patents registered to another company. But, as expected, Biden did not intervene.


Apple had already taken the offending Watch models off its online store, and Apple Store locations opened Tuesday without any of the latest top-of-the-line watches in stock. The cheaper Apple Watch SE, which was not part of the ruling, remains on sale, but the ban affects the Apple Watch Series 6 and later, and all models of Apple Watch Ultra.

In October, the US International Trade Commission ruled that Apple was in violation of a pulse oximeter patent, which uses light-based technology to read blood-oxygen levels. Masimo, a medical device maker, holds the patent in question.

Other retailers, including Amazon and Best Buy, among others, continue to sell their remaining stock of Apple Watches in stores and online. But the ITC ruling prevents Apple from importing more of the smartwatches to the United States.

Apple has routinely marketed its smartwatch as a life-saving device, which has helped launch the Apple Watch into the stratosphere, making it the most popular watch sold around the world. But its skirmish with Masimo threatens to undermine that.

On December 18, Apple opted to preemptively begin taking the Series 9 and Ultra 2 versions of the Apple Watch out of stock in anticipation of the ruling kicking in. Without intervention from Biden, the 60-day review period on the ITC's ruling ends Monday.


"Apple strongly disagrees with the order and is pursuing a range of legal and technical options to ensure that Apple Watch is available to customers," the company said in a statement at the time. But Apple (AAPL) also pledged to "take all measures" to bring the Apple Watch back to US customers soon.

The company may be able to make software tweaks, perhaps changing the way the Watch interacts with the pulse oximeter so that it does not violate Masimo's patent. But such a change could take time, and there's no guarantee that the ITC will accept Apple's potential solution.

Masimo CEO Joe Kiani told CNN he believes Apple deliberately infringed on his company's patents. But the companies have been at loggerheads for years. In October 2022, Apple filed two patent infringement lawsuits against Masimo.

Although an intervention from Biden did not take place, there is some precedent for a president to overturn the ITC. In 2013, President Barack Obama vetoed an ITC ruling to ban older iPhones and iPads after it determined Apple was in violation of one of Samsung's patents.

We keep hearing if the patents were so valuable why wouldn't they be bought up by a major company. Well here's an article that tells you everything:

SAN FRANCISCO — Apple said on Monday that it would pause sales of its flagship smartwatches online starting Thursday and at retail locations on Christmas Eve.

Two months ago, Apple lost a patent case over the technology its smartwatches use to detect people’s pulse rate. The company was ordered to stop selling the Apple Watch Series 9 and Watch Ultra 2 after Christmas, which could set off a run on sales of the watches in the final week of holiday shopping.

Short Sale Homes - Search Utica Listings
Ad
deals.newforeclosedhomes.com/Utica/foreclosures
Short Sale Homes - Search Utica Listings
The move by Apple follows a ruling by the International Trade Commission in October that found several Apple Watches infringe on patents held by Masimo, a medical technology company in Irvine, Calif.

In court, Masimo detailed how Apple poached its top executives and more than a dozen other employees before later releasing a watch with pulse oximeter capabilities — which measures the percentage of oxygen that red blood cells carry from the lungs to the body — that were patented by Masimo.

To avoid a complete ban on sales, Apple had two months to cut a deal with Masimo to license its technology, or it could appeal to the Biden administration to reverse the ruling.

But Joe Kiani, the chief executive of Masimo, said in an interview that Apple had not engaged in licensing negotiations. Instead, he said that Apple had appealed to President Biden to veto the I.T.C. ruling, which Mr. Kiani knows because the administration contacted Masimo about Apple’s request.

Related video: Apple to Stop Selling Smartwatches After Patent Loss (Bloomberg)

Play
Current Time 0:17
/
Duration 0:49
Captions
Fullscreen
Bloomberg
Apple to Stop Selling Smartwatches After Patent Loss
Unmute
View on Watch
View on Watch
“They’re trying to make the agency look like it’s helping patent trolls,” Mr. Kiani said of the I.T.C.

Apple didn’t respond to requests for comment on Mr. Kiani’s remarks. In a statement, the company said, “Apple strongly disagrees with the order and is pursuing a range of legal and technical options to ensure that Apple Watch is available to customers.”

The Biden administration didn’t immediately respond to request for comment.

Mr. Kiani said that he was willing to sell Apple a chip that Masimo had designed to provide pulse oximeter readings on the Apple Watch. The chip is currently in a Masimo medical watch, called the W1, that is approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The device uses algorithms to process red and near-infrared light to determine how oxygen-rich is the blood in arteries.

“If they don’t want to use our chip, I’ll work with them to make their product good,” Mr. Kiani said. “Once it’s good enough, I’m happy to give them a license.”

Here Are 29 of the Coolest Gifts for This 2023
Ad
Coolest Gifts
Here Are 29 of the Coolest Gifts for This 2023
Apple introduced its first watch with pulse oximetry in 2020. It has included the technology, which it calls “blood oxygen,” in subsequent models. But unlike Masimo’s W1 device, Apple hasn’t had its watches cleared by the F.D.A. for use as a medical device for pulse oximetry.

The Apple Watch accounts for nearly $20 billion of the company’s $383.29 billion in annual sales, according to Bernstein Research, a financial research firm. Apple is the largest smartwatch seller in the world and accounts for about a third of all smartwatch sales, according to Counterpoint Research, a tech research firm.

Apple has had success persuading presidents in the past to veto I.T.C. rulings. In 2013, the Obama administration overturned a ban on the sale of some iPhones and iPads, after the court determined that Apple had violated a patent that Samsung owned.

Has anyone considered the fact that all this selling also gives them the money to rebuy in at a lower price than they sold. No different than people on this board. Emil's wife can accumulate 5x what she had. Now that's making money

Does anybody know approximately how many shears, Emil and his wife own

Is there still a court case tomorrow or did that get moved to the 17th

Could they have ended this if we lost Friday or are we still in the process waiting for an outcome on the marksman hearing.

Do you know how many claims there were? Do you know if they wrap up everything today or have to finish next week?

Thank you, The explanation says jury will hears this did I read that right? Do they have to pick a jury?

I am not familiar with the marksman process. How long does the judge usually take to make a decision? Does that decision just say weather the case moves forward or not?

What is the date when the decision on venue will be decided.

That must mean you talk to your cousin about VPLM and he is a lawyer for one of the companies. That sounds like insider info.

I just saw this, very interesting I wonder if any of this might be relative to VPLM





Federal Judges Make Tidy Profit Ruling In Favor Of Companies They Own
Recusal rates leave a lot to be desired.

By JOE PATRICE
onSeptember 28, 2021 at 3:24 PM
21
SHARES
Judicial ethics should not be an oxymoron, and yet here we are.

Making your way as a federal judge isn’t as financially cushy as many people think. After all, you’ve got to rely on the tens of millions dollars you’ve racked up as a private practice attorney and really stretch that $218-$230K/year for the rest of your natural life like you’re some kind of plebeian associate! You’re going to need some kind of side hustle to get by. If Uber isn’t an option, perhaps some day trading in between hearings?

The Wall Street Journal reported that 131 federal judges between 2010 and 2020 failed to recuse themselves in cases where they personally owned stock in one of the parties. If that’s a stunning figure, then consider the corollary that these judges ruled in favor of the companies in front of them around two-thirds of the time. Presumably the other third of the time, the judges owned stock in both companies — now there’s a real quandary!

finance-g0cea1ae4a_640
SPONSORED
Are You Looking For A Transition Into A First-Class In House Role?
Look no further. Successful private equity investor in New York is looking to fill the role of Chief Legal Counsel.
From KINNEY RECRUITING
We’ve come to expect this sort of egregious behavior from the Supreme Court, which does not hold itself accountable to the federal ethical codes it applies to the rest of the judiciary branch, but the complete failure at the lower level is shocking. According to the report, when confronted with the legal breaches, judges offered a number of excuses. Some blamed faulty conflict check procedures, which would render the errors unintentional, though raise a whole new set of questions about the technical capabilities of the federal courts. Maybe this is why the judges think PACER is a $2 billion program.

Others downplayed the significance of any conflicts, which is definitely the strong genital fortitude answer for federal judges who were just informed that they’ve broken the law.

“This investigation should send a shudder through anyone who finds him or herself before a federal judge right now,” Fix the Court’s Gabe Roth said. “If we can’t trust our judges to be impartial, we’re in a bad place as a nation of laws.”

Roth added: “Though the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts said it’d ‘carefully review[…] the matter,’ in light of the reporting that’s not enough. That some judges are contrite when confronted with their missed recusals does not undo the harm or give the public confidence going forward. Greater transparency around judicial stock transactions is needed, and we’ll only get that when Congress passes a law to make it so.”


And



Politicians and Fed officials aren't the only ones trading in stocks with conflicts of interest — judges do it too, and a new report shows 131 of them did so illegally
Shalini Nagarajan Oct 2, 2021, 7:00 AM


judge gavel courtroom
Naruecha Jenthaisong/Getty Images
131 federal judges breached US law by failing to recuse themselves from lawsuits in which they held a financial interest, WSJ found.
61 judges or their families didn't just hold stocks in companies they were overseeing in court, they also traded them during cases.
"I had no idea that I had an interest in any of these companies in what was a most modest retirement account," one judge said.
Sign up here for our daily newsletter, 10 Things Before the Opening Bell.

The investing world has been rife with conflict recently. Two prominent
Federal Reserve
officials got embroiled in controversial stock-trading, while House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has become popular as the "Queen of Stonks", thanks to her own trades, and also those of her husband.

Pelosi made a few stock purchases that could be a conflict of interest as part of her job, while Fed presidents Eric Rosengren and Robert Kaplan recently said they would resign over controversially trading stocks while in office.

Adding to the issue, more than 130 federal judges violated US law by hearing cases that involved companies in which they, or their families, held shares, according to an investigation by the Wall Street Journal.

The Journal reviewed financial disclosures by about 700 federal judges, filed each year from 2010 through 2018, who revealed holdings in large-cap individual stocks, and compared them against tens of thousands of court cases.


Judges questioned by the WSJ said they were either unaware of their violations, or mistakenly believe they weren't required to recuse themselves from the cases.

'I am mortified'
Judge Timothy Batten, appointed by former President George Bush, heard 11 lawsuits related to JPMorgan in 2010 and 2011, even though he owned shares in the bank. Most of those lawsuits led to outcomes in the bank's favor, WSJ found.

"I am mortified," Judge Batten told WSJ by phone when he was alerted about the violations, which took place before he joined the Codes of Conduct committee in 2019. "I had no idea that I had an interest in any of these companies in what was a most modest retirement account" that was managed by a broker, he said, adding that he regretted being involved in a conflict of interest.

Batten said he stopped investing in individual stocks in 2021 and moved into mutual funds, which do not require recusal.


Judge Janis Sammartino of California, also an appointee of Bush, traded in stocks including Bank of America, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, JPMorgan, and Wells Fargo while hearing 18 lawsuits that involved one or more of those companies. Overall, she heard 54 cases that involved a conflict of interest.

Sammartino's spokesperson told WSJ that she didn't see how there could be a conflict as her stocks are held in a managed account.

What the Administrative Office of the US Court said
"The Wall Street Journal's report on instances where conflicts inadvertently were not identified before a case was resolved or transferred is troubling, and the Administrative Office is carefully reviewing the matter."

Key findings:
1. Judges appointed by almost every president from Lyndon Johnson's term to Donald Trump's failed to withdraw themselves from 685 cases across the US since 2010.


2. About 66% of federal judges revealed their holdings in individual stocks, and one in five of those heard at least one case that involved those stocks.

3. After being notified of their violations, 56 judges instructed court clerks to alert parties involved in 329 lawsuits that they should have been recused. This indicates new judges may be assigned to the lawsuits, which could affect rulings.

4. During their participation in such cases, about 66% of the rulings were made in favor of personal financial interest.

5. 129 federal district judges and two federal appellate judges had at least one case in which a stock they had vested interest was a plaintiff or a defendant.


6. 61 judges or their families didn't just hold stocks in companies that were plaintiffs or defendants in their courts, they also traded them during those cases.

7. Although stock value doesn't matter under the law, stockholdings amounted to more than $15,000 in 173 cases and $50,000 in 21 cases.

8. The violations break a core principle of US law that was first laid out by Congress in 1792: No one should be a judge on his or her own case.

I can't agree more with your logic. Could you please provide me with the source codes for Apple and Mirco Soft so I can read them and duplicate them.

I can't agree more with your logic. Could you please provide me with the source codes for Apple and Mircowave Soft so I can read them and duplicate them.

You keep saying no license, if it where worth million why wouldn't some one buy, any company that thought if it was worth millions and could get infringements from other companies would buy it. All this mean the patents are worthless. Read the story on the Interment Wiper patent. By your standards that patent was not worth anything. You are so wrong IMO

What happens if they sold any of the share since they were cancelled

Intermittent wipers!!!!!!!!!

About a year, and then it was appealed. And it is still not done

What was for sale for the last seven years was a patent application. Who would spend any money on something that was not a patent . And maybe that is the sticking point. They could have bought the application for a lower dollar amount but once the patents were approved they wanted more money for it.

Here are a couple of examples of companies not buying patents that could have made them billions.

It’s fair to call Netscape a dinosaur of technology — after all, the web browser launched 22 years ago, which is eons in in Silicon Valley time. But the company played a vital role in the way tech develops through the antitrust lawsuit it won against Microsoft, a decision with implications that still influence the industry today. Yet while Netscape won that battle, it eventually lost the browser war — but not before selling itself off to AOL for $4.2 billion.

_______________________________________________________________________

One of the first Digital Video Recorders, or DVRs, to come to market — and a brand so successful it became a verb — TiVo to this day puts out some of the best set-top boxes on the planet. But the company is on this list because it played nice when it should have dominated. For instance, instead of suing when cable companies rolled out their own DVRs, TiVo waited to see if they could work out a deal, because it was reliant on the TV providers. Then, rather than marketing how much better TiVo boxes were than cable DVRs, the company tamed its revolutionary commercial-skipping features. And finally, when TiVo did sue, it was too late — cable company DVRs were everywhere. TiVo won all its patent infringement cases, bringing home $1.6 billion that has sustained the company to this day. But considering that many consumers think TiVo went out of business, in the end, did it really win? Maybe, because we can at least thank it for popularizing DVRs.

Ok I miss spoke, but still -aaccording to you they are worthless, this will go sub zero way before they can sell that many shares.

You must be laughing your a** off., thinking how stupid Emil is. If you are right he bought those shares for .025 cents each and as you say this is going sub penny he will lose his butt. So he did the company a favor paying to much for the stock. There is no way he can sell that much stock that fast to recover his money. So he just made a cash infusion into the company. He must be pretty stupid. Lol

Our you kidding me, we are starting our court battle, this costs money, if they did not have a revenue stream ready to be used they would be remiss on their duties to the company and all those that have invested.

How many time have we heard that Apple will bleed us dry in court costs and maybe thats their plan but we have just set aside the means to let them know we will fight it and have the means to pay for it.

I am sure if the court battle is underway and we need more money we could just ask the judge to put this on hold to we get the funds together to pay for it. lol

I wasn't expecting any news until after the elections tomorrow. The Tech companies have a lot riding on Dem's getting back into power. If they don't I think we will see a quick decision from the PTAB. Then the rides on.

Let's see the major stock holder purchases 57,800,000 shares with his own money and this is a bad thing. Not only does this show something is about to happpen it also bumped up his share holdings against his anti dilution clause. How many shares did he just give up by purchasing share himself. The company can sell approximately 125,000,000 with him not getting any addition share through the anti dilution clause.

It gets tiring reading about people losing money if they bought at the high point. This is how investing works some stocks go up and some go down , if you can buy every stock at its low point and sell it at its high point every time, you would be a millionaire. That is the chance you take. Look at the people that bought in last week in the 4's, that could have been any of us and that would have been the chance you took to make money and would have been a wise investment. If you bought in at 40 that was the chance you took to make money. Do I feel sorry for anybody that bought at 40, not a chance, do I feel happy for anyone that bought at 005, no. They both took the same risk with their money, one did good, one did not do so good, but that is investing. So to keep saying how some ppl are losing money is ridiculous. No different than people that bought Tesla at its high and where it is now.

At anytime anyone can buy in or sell out, that is a discussion you must make based on your own DD. Anything you read on this board that is not backed up by a verifiable source is just plain speculation. Everyone can have an opinion and should be taken as such, that goes for good and bad issues brought up.

I have a question on the law suits over Seas. Can apple or who ever be sued in another country, while being sued in the US, since they are infrainging on the patents in their country.

Where the judges that were going to hear the appeal the same ones that heard the original case.

Just like Peter Strzok, he was given another position in the FBI, until he was fired.

This is not about collecting the funds from Apple ( but that would be icing on the cake). If we win the lawsuit against Apple it will make all of the other companies vulnerable to our lawsuits. Even if apple ends up paying 1,000,000 in the long run we will be able to collect from numerous other companies and get licensing agreement. Apple will have to start paying from that point forward. Most of the other companies do not have the legal standing Apple does. I wont care if we got a dime from Apple they are just one of many fishes we can fry.

What is zzz?

With that list of questions, may I add a few?

How much would it cost Apple if they bought the patents (at what ever price you determine) and some other company were to challenge it and win?

How much would Apple save fighting a small company like VPLM to validate the patents (By Apple losing in court, then they buy the patents and use their lost to validate the legal precedents) instead of fighting a Micro Soft that can play the same games as them dragging the process out?

If the Sawyer letters were done with Hobbs imput they may have to recuse themself from this proceeding. If it goes to a hearing they would be better served as a witness rather than their lawyer.

The article stated

" In the challenge, Oil States Energy Services, backed by an army of mostly small patent owners, argue that without life tenure and other trappings of the federal judiciary, the PTAB is too vulnerable to political pressure from the executive branch. At the November oral arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch asked repeatedly if PTAB leadership was improperly using panel composition to influence trial outcomes. Now Apple, the No. 1 most frequent filer of IPR petitions, alleging that’s exactly what happened in its Voip-Pal case."

Sounds like alot

Apple should watch what they say, it would be very easy to see how many Panels had members changed on it in order to achieve the outcome they wanted. Now you have a case for RICCO
Imo

It seem you have answered the question you have asked over a hundred times:

If these patents were all that why hasn't someone bought them?

Well by your own admission they did not have the patents, they misinformed us and they we not worth anything at the time.

Now that they have the patents, continue to add child patents,and are getting the patents approved over seas the story changes. Looks like now they have something to sell before they didn't.

Maybe that's the answer to your question.

IMO

Its not Apple its the patents they would own, and you have no idea what kind of deals if any were made prior to the lawsuit. It would be a lot cheaper to fight VPLM and lose, verifying the patents enforceabilty, then buy the patents and have to fight all of the infringers. Apple will have already challenged the patents and lost setting a president in court. It would be a smart move on there behalf.