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.
excellent !!! but we deserve a blast to 50 for starters !!! one of these days its gotta happen...
dont underestimate yourself !!!! we know better !!!
lol !!! now you know we are paying attention !
one of these days.......
lol !!! your cynicism is dually noted but may i remind you waiting sux, and we should uplist to the nasdaq asap. but forever is not going to happen because there options to delay and not pay are running out. they are all so blatantly guilty is what we have working on our side.
i might be over reaching due to the fact i'm not tec savvy. but what i've learned so far through holding this position and all the litigation i've read is this. nlst's tec is in just about everything and very accessible to any company who wants to use it or even try to build on it and make it there own. having said that i wouldnt doubt they either go with what we have or be late to the party. and in being late if they succeed it will only be outdated and not up to par with whatever nlst has at that moment. just my 2 cents fwiw.........
NLST Anybody remember this one. HAHA
The application is denied. The Court wishes Mr. Yoder a complete and speedy recovery. IT IS SO ORDERED.
lofl !!! if i remember correctly yodels had the quickest recovery from covid in history !
Doc 70 from the Breach of Contract case against Samsung is a reminder to anyone the games Samsung tried to play and a glaring example to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals the nonsense Judge Scarsi was dealing with. Check it out!
The application does not warrant ex parte relief. Ex parte applications are solely for extraordinary relief and are rarely justified. Mission Power Eng 'g Co. v. Cont'/ Cas. Co. , 883 F. Supp. 488, 490 (C.D. Cal. 1995). A party filing an ex parte application must support its request for emergency relief with "evidence ... that the moving party's case will be irreparably prejudiced if the underlying motion is heard according to regularly noticed motion procedures," and a showing "that the moving party is without fault in creating the crisis that requires ex parte relief, or that the crisis occurred as a result of excusable neglect." Id. at 492. Here, Defendant could file a properly noticed motion to be heard before the deadlines sought to be continued. See C.D. Cal. R. 6-1. Defendant fails to show why it would be irreparably prejudiced if it followed regular motion procedures.
Defendant has not exhibited reasonable diligence in completing discovery. The Court set a pretrial schedule in February. (Order Re: Jury Trial, ECF No. 41.) Defense counsel represents that Defendant first served written discovery requests on June 28 and first noticed depositions on June 15. (Rhow Decl. ¶¶ 8–9, ECF No. 67- 1.) No depositions have taken place. (Appl. 3.) Defendant made the strategic decision to focus its efforts on an informal resolution instead of taking discovery in the past four months. (See Rhow Decl. ¶ 3.) It did so at its own peril.
https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=%21AD4QgkitJYmOy1o&id=658845AE0CC93963%2188593&cid=658845AE0CC93963&parId=root&parQt=sharedby&parCid=95100B662EDC7594&o=OneUp
Stokd
18m
$NLST SInce we're on the subject of BOC appeal & JDLA, this line alone blows up Samsung's argument on ambiguity—even with the JDP being insinuated as the umbrella term without inclusion in sections—“Samsung shall be under no obligation to complete any phase of the JDP, and reserves the right to suspend the JDP at any time for any reason.”—yet that is not grounds for termination, nor does it affect and cancel the license they get from Netlist.
So how can it honestly be viewed as intended by both parties that Samsung can at anytime pull the plug on the JDP, therefore release themselves from the obligation of supplying Netlist—since they consider it being only for the JDP—yet retain Netlist’s license.
There are many more holes in Samsung's arguments... hopefully we don't have to wait long for a decision.
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_546524008.png
yes, HONG SHOULD TESTIFY !!!!!
NLST CNBC talked today about the Google anti-trust case. Google lawyers argue that Google made lots of "investments" in search that others (MSFT) did not make. Funny Google did not mention all the patents Google stole. I think it would be beneficial for NLST to testify in the anti-trust case, as a witness to Google's anti-competitive behavior. Get it on the record in another case. GLTALs!!
NLST And btw, I forgot to include Samsung's argument/assertion to Sec 6.2 (bottom pic below)...lol... does that even make sense or anywhere near the realm of possibility and interpretation??? This is what they're trying to convince the appeal court... it's laughable.
I included JDLA Sec 6.1 & 6.2 for reference... you can see in Sec 6.1 language specific to the JDP (Joint Development Project) NVDIMM-P controller, if Samsung intended for their supply to Netlist to only be for the NVDIMM-P Joint-Development Project—as they argue—they would have also added specific language to reflect that in Sec 6.2.
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_546507194.png
NLST The filings in the Delaware case are 3 procedural letters (pic below) and Joint Claim Construction Brief with 4 Appendix which are all Sealed (pic below).
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_546505350.png
NLST Reiterate IMO—even if BOC appeal succeeds... not a given/automatic nor will it be easy for Samsung to retain a license.
Decision can be—
"Affirmed"—lower court judgment stands.
"Reversed"—lower court judgment reversed.
Affirmed/Reversed "In Part"—on particular aspects with instructions such as remand to lower court for judgment or new trial, with specifics.
2 aspects to Samsung's breach—withholding NRE fees & cutting supply—even just for the supply breach to be reversed, appeal court would need to find ambiguity and then remand for trial on JDLA terms, specifically Sec 6.2. But interpreted any other way would be egregious and predatory contract… which Netlist did not intend and would not have signed. Hard to win on interpretation when contracts must adhere to plain/simple language as written and intended.
If anything, Samsung knew Netlist wouldn't sign it otherwise, and planned to raise ambiguity on appeal—if/when Netlist terminated, sued, and won on breach.
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_546502197.png
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc. (1:21-cv-01453)
District Court, D. Delaware
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60649248/samsung-electronics-co-ltd-v-netlist-inc/?order_by=desc
ROID BABY !!! no choice but to live with it for now !!
lofl!!! nice the way it drops at the end, pos.............
but you mentioned the best part, ''NASDAQ'', thats where we belong now !!! so keep posting, i cant remember it all !!
i'm surprised you havnt learned that very important lesson in life yet . one broad is more than enough for any man. more than one and i have to side with the insanity clause. as you may be a glutton for punishment !!!
one of these days........ we'll get paid !!!
you are totally correct, and may i add its been that way for over 10 years. may i also add with all due respect as well. no sarcasm intended. bottom line they all are guilty and the judicial system is right there to help them drag this out till they run out of options. we win any litigation we go up, they appeal and we go down. the shorting and manipulation is endless. sux when you play a game of we can win but you cant lose. this is a multi billion dollar company in disguise by design of the judicial system that lets big tec kick the can down the road!!
its really hard to believe that most tec in the world today wouldnt run without our components. but in response to your very valid question. yes anything can happen at any moment. sk hynix settles for 40mil cash and 650 mil of business over 5 years right out of left field. scamcunt gets smacked with over 300 million from the dug out and that ones got interest piling up on it. then theres micrime who goes on trial this january for the exact same thing scunt got jury burdened with 300mil. same trial with the same judge in the same court room. yes, there already proven guilty and in contempt at the moment. lots of fun and games here at nlst. micron will get hammered for atleast 500mill. did it more than twice as long and never had a license. i'll leave googler goo for when they start on it again later. but that one should add up to more than all the others put together, no exaggeration either.
this will run huge once all the legal activity has ceased, or one of them actually pays us. whichever happens first........
this stock just based on forward looking events should be trading well into the double digits. as they say, the writings on the wall and in everyones tec !!!
been lookin at one of these for the last month, i know this thing screams mississippi queen, vintage reissue.......
https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/LPJRVTNH--gibson-les-paul-junior-vintage-tobacco-burst?serial=209430240
lol !!!! because everyone else is contently complacent with having nothing to say ? idk..... but its my board and your welcome to post anything you like. i'm retired with nothing to do till this pos pays me. thats my excuse, you dont need one but i am willing to hear anything you wish to contribute, cool ?
robcobb
17m
$NLST I’ve been to two prior compel hearings where Nlst is trying to get Micron to comply to discovery motions ,I keep hearing Judge Payne ordering Micron to comply !Rueckheim keeps saying they will provide everything that Nlst wants and that they have provided a mountain of what Jason wants.So I say if they have and will produce what Jason needs why are we having a hearing Oct.23 for 14 motions to produce?When will Judge Payne say enough is enough?It’s only three more weeks till the hearing from today? I am really looking forward forward to reporting this one!
NLST The top item is a screenshot of Section 13.2 from the Netlist/Samsung JDLA agreement. The two below are from Netlist' filing in August 2020 stating the 'MATERIAL breach of contract' which as you can see is expressly spelled out in Section 13.2. In the YouTube video, which I will link in the comments section from roughly the 12:00 to 13:50 mark, Samsung attorney Michael Yoder claims numerous eroneous facts, such as Samsung never had the chance to cure. See redacted page below. Look at the last lines, it says they never even responded. They didn't cure within 30 days, or longer as required in 13.2 of the JDLA. Section 13.2 clearly states this is a material breach. Yoder whines about strict liability and materiality. Timing is everything my friend. You lost, you lose.
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_546396271.png
