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.
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.
I don't agree with a $1B valuation and I don't agree with your assumption that once everyone buys the product then that's it.
I suspect this type of hardware and systems will need to be replaced every few years as terrorist continue to innovate.
Short Interest (Shares Short)
390,300
Short Interest Ratio (Days To Cover)
2.4
Short Percent of Float
%
Short % Increase / Decrease
-4 %
Short Interest (Shares Short) - Prior
406,900
Yes it's seamless....too bad we could not get them to pay for it.
Yep, they are all crooks, we all know it why rehash it?
•Each moderator can add one Sticky Post.
•Each moderator can only remove their own Sticky Post.
•When a moderator is removed their Sticky Post is automatically removed.
Did Diac file an appeal?
"NEVER try to read anything into a judge's thinking/decision UNTIL you actually read his signed document."
That's for damn sure!
Huh?
Is there any new filings by Diac?
From wikipedia:
"Generic Access Network or GAN is a telecommunication system that extends mobile voice, data and IP Multimedia Subsystem/Session Initiation Protocol (IMS/SIP) applications over IP networks. Unlicensed Mobile Access or UMA, is the commercial name used by mobile carriers for external IP access into their core networks.
The most common application of GAN is in a dual-mode handset service where subscribers can seamlessly handover connections between wireless LANs and wide area networks using a GSM/Wi-Fi dual-mode mobile phone. UMA technology has enabled the convergence of mobile, fixed and Internet telephony, sometimes called Fixed Mobile Convergence.
The local network may be based on private unlicensed spectrum technologies like 802.11, while the wide network is alternatively GSM/GPRS or UMTS mobile services. On the cellular network, the mobile handset communicates over the air with a base station, through a base station controller, to servers in the core network of the carrier.
Under the GAN system, when the handset detects a wireless LAN, it establishes a secure IP connection through a gateway to a server called a GAN Controller (GANC) on the carrier's network. The GANC presents to the mobile core network as a standard cellular base station. The handset communicates with the GANC over the secure connection using existing GSM/UMTS protocols. Thus, when a mobile moves from a GSM to an 802.11 network, it appears to the core network as if it is simply on a different base station."
Not sure what the Lite stands for.
Not only TM is running scared but the other wireless companies are following this as well...they will be in the same boat as TM and making an offer to buy after the trial.
What's your offer? Five bucks a share?
Keep the pressure on!
That number sounds better.
I'm confused with this statement on page 23:
"T-Mobile was and remains the only major cell phone provider to offer UMA equipped devices to it's customers."
Are they saying that T-Mobile is the only cell phone provider infringing?
and usage in 2012. I think a jury will award at least 500M and up!
You're right all the jury needs to know is this:
ASNAPâ„¢, which stands for: Automatic Switching of Network Access Points.
"The seamless flow of data while switching between a wireless connection from a cellular tower to a local Wi-Fi access point and back to cellular again."
If your phone does this then you are infringing on our patent.
Don't take anything South of 400 Million!
Shreveport is closer than Dallas, Marshall is in the pine trees of East Texas.
Yep could be but I think 400mil was an estimate/calculation of what they think T-Mobile is on the hook for infringing on our patent. Daic is smart enough not to just pull some random percentage number out of his azz. My two cents!
I don't have info just me speculating, 28% of what would equal the amount that Daic vacated in a previous agreement? I think he was trying to recoup that previous amount and based the 28% on some numbers being tossed around. This is just pure speculation!
Bigger question is: Have you ever wondered why the Diac deal was set at 28% and not 20% or 15% a nice round number?
I'm thinking the heat must be affecting your mind!
"fiduciary duty"
They all failed miserably. One may have had a bigger role than the other...who knows with all of the finger pointing. This judge could see thru all of the BS. Now all of BOD, CEO, CFO can add this to their resume, we were owner of a patent with enormous value and yet we pissed it away. What a bunch of morons!
Hokey Pokey, you should have bought when you had the chance! It's either all or nothing!