I hear that from the wife and kids all the time, it doesn't stop me from saying stupid stuff. Don't let it stop you.
Only if it's an amusing one. Or one I can relate too. And, I know the feeling.
excellent !!! but we deserve a blast to 50 for starters !!! one of these days its gotta happen...
dont underestimate yourself !!!! we know better !!!
Well usually I don't say anything of value anyhow soooo :+)
lol !!! now you know we are paying attention !
agreed one of these days sher'll run like a scalded dog.
rotflol no one evert cares what i say most of the time, but make one mistake and they come out of the wood work.
lol i didn't even notice that error
one of these days.......
yes it can, but not either way. mho
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 and in being late if they succeed it will only be outdated and not up to par with whatever nlst has at that moment.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.........
Well, just to be cynical today as I watch the market keep falling along with my investments, the only "reminder to anyone" is that they can play these "games Samsung tried to play" almost FOREVER and never have to pay up!
Anyway, I hope things do change direction soon.
I wonder if there is any chance that the NLST IP is in the middle of this.
The tech giants are creating or working on Nvidia alternatives, including Amazon's (AMZN) Inferentia chips, Google's TPUs and Microsoft, which is reportedly working with AMD on new AI chips.
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.
$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.
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.
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).
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.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc. (1:21-cv-01453)
District Court, D. Delaware
ROID BABY !!! no choice but to live with it for now !!
Unsurprisingly it actually hit red before setting for a push today. Come on chuck, do something. We can't keep waiting for the courts.
And, sometimes one is one too many depending on the circumstances.
Oh yea, NASDAQ. Get some.
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 !!!
Well said. Much better and more details then my explanation. That is why I don't add much usually.
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 !!!
Definitely true. Rulings in our favor can come out at any time. The problem is there might be appeals and other legal nonsense involved. We already got a win for over 300 million from samscum but have not seen a plugged nickel. Until money changes hands, or an upgrade, it's a long slow wait. Hang in there, one of these centuries we will hit it big.
Oh interesting. I read someone saying that a BOC ruling could come out at anytime without notice and the stock could react wildly to that. Is that not true about the ruling?
Unfortunately until money actually changes hands or we hit the Nasdaq, which I'm surprised we're not on yet, nothing will happen here. With the PPS or the board.
Striper is correct about the complacency.
We are waiting for long dragged out court cases instead of showing everybody who we are on the Nasdaq. Nothing much to say.
either direction lol
May I ask what other broads your reading that on?
haha cool. I love your response. I'm reading on other boards a ruling can come anytime without notice and cause the price to swing in either direction. Any thoughts on this?
been lookin at one of these for the last month, i know this thing screams mississippi queen, vintage reissue.......
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 ?
How come your like the only one posting here?
$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.