Well someone is buying above that level. Here's what I have found interesting

1. Clearly alot of selling and large buys going through yet there have been no filings showing anyone greater than 5% yet. My last post mentioned the requirements in that regard. It is quite odd, but perhaps this has all been mom and pop retail buying, surprising but again there has been no disclosure of over 5% so?

2. I have added as much as I am willing to with this risk level (ie no ptab ruling in our favor yet). I would add if it drops below 1 but it seems the MM is preventing that.

3. If you look at the trading on level 2 during the day you will see much of what I talked about previously (other posts). In particular, watch the time stamps of buy and sell orders. Example below. I suggest all watch the trading on level 2 tomorrow and watch the bids with the same time stamps vs asks with the same time stamp. (Now that I've said it watch our MM's change it up lol)- but I had mentioned it previously as well, and it continued today. ie a 2 bids spread out at 9:30 am and an ask at 9:30 am, then at (example) 10:42 am all three change at the same time.

BIDS

CANT 0.0112 10000 06/09
ARCA 0.0111 20000 06/09
BMAK 0.0111 10000 06/08
CSTI 0.0111 10000 06/09
CDEL 0.0095 200000 06/09
ETRF 0.0091 59000 06/09
NITE 0.007 100000 06/09

You can't see it now because its after midnight so it just shows the date, but those three bids all had the same 'time stamp' as the bolded asks below. But, it's relatively impossible for three orders to constantly be changing intra day and every day at the same time. Clearly, the market maker is adjusting or a bot is adjusting automatically (algorithm).


Ask

VNDM 0.0115 10000 06/09
CDEL 0.0116 12134 06/09
ARCA 0.0125 20000 06/09
CANT 0.0159 10000 06/09
CSTI 0.017 15000 06/09
BMAK 0.022 10000 06/08

In addition, as those orders changed throughout the day they all changed simultaneously. Clearly, those bids are fake and trying to force retail to purchase above 0.0095 for certain and above 0.0112.

But that range, again falls in line with where I said their range of making a profit was.

The question then becomes, until people stop falling for that game, well they will keep doing it.

I would agree, if you want shares, bid below 0.0095 - but some seem to be ignoring that - that seems to be their 'stopper' though with that spoof order of 200k.

Reality is, someone is wanting off their position as you said (the convert holder), so why let them out easily?

this stock is a steaming hot bag of dog crap

so glad I made 250k shorting this pos!!

LOL...rinse repeat

Time to reload the short position on this load of garbage

100k shorting coming!

Responses to art35 and _God_ below:

Art:

1. Check Yahoo, and click on historical prices. You can see the daily volume there. Simply scroll down to the last time we were at 3 cents and add up the volume to now....I can tell you since March 18th we've seen approx 44 mil shares traded (including today). You can actually download to excel so you can easily add up the numbers if you choose.


2. Good question on who's buying. You are right that once a shareholder passes the 5% ownership mark they have to report to the SEC. They have 10 days after they breach that mark to report but indeed they do have to.

3. I have been looking for that report every day for a week and am surprised we haven't seen it. Now, perhaps its Kidrin buying and he doesn't have to report since he's already announced he owns > 10% of the company. That is my only guess because its hard to believe that there are that many retail gamblers out there soaking up all those large crosses AH. Keep checking for a filing is my only advice (as I am).



_God_:



1. I would agree, and there clearly has been some additional dilution either before the convert seller started and we assumed it to be them, or now.

2. Today approx 700k shares were crossed late yet again. So we seem to have alot of selling still.

3. I am glad you are watching as well and have seen what I have seen. You can easily identify the fake buys based on who the MM is and time stamps and if you watch, late in the day the ask always walks down because no one is bidding up (good!).

4. As I explained prior, this is indeed still MM gaming. That being said, it still holds that this is a high risk gamble that has better odds of zero than big money (at least how the ptab has behaved and how the market is pricing it), so no need for any of us to allow the seller to shift their risk to us and still profit.
Keep the bids low folks!

I don't 'think' - I 'know'

1. Public company financial disclosure rules

2. When a company states "as at" March 17th x amount of shares are reserved for the convert holder this means 'AS AT' that date 'THAT AMOUNT" of shares are "RESERVED". This does not mean that some other number of shares are reserved as at that date. It also is not the total amount reserved in the past (some other date) and thus would be (by implication) ignoring that some where sold off. This last point again, comes down to disclosure requirements.

3.Companies often provide mid quarter updates on material issues to shareholders. Ie VRNG press releases are a good example. Many times mid quarter they would mention what their cash balance was (being an NPE with no recurring revenue, cash was always a concern to shareholders as such they provided that information) "as at" that date. Again, the term 'as at' should tell any investor that 'as at' that specific date, the amount stated is the balance.

4. If you provide a number 'as at' a certain date there is no other number -that number is what is outstanding, this is a fact as per public company disclosure requirements.

5. A company will not tell you a certain number of shares are reserved for the note holder if another number is reserved (ie some have been sold off). Moreover, if one reads through the proxy, it is obvious given the commentary by Kidrin of forgoing options should shareholders not agree to authorize more shares that the 31 million was required for the convert holder.

7. Finally, simply using the information I provided prior on numerous occasions(quarterly/proxy/trading volumes)- my view is obviously correct (just from a logic perspective). However,even ignoring logic, there is no doubt that I am correct from a factual point of view given financial disclosure requirements, the trading behavior of the stock since I provided commentary on the convert and if it was 'done' or not.

Schmidt -> White House -> Congress -> AIA -> Lee -> PTAB games

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/04/google-influence-hiring-government-officials?CMP=twt_a-technology_b-gdntech

This is why the PTAB kills 90% of software patents and who their 'real' boss is - not congress, well sort of, its the boss of Congress as I have said all along.

Let's hope SCOTUS is the last institution that is not corrupt -MCM + Cooper hopefully address this corrupt crap

I would agree with that. I checked the volume since March 18th yesterday and it was around 44 million if I recall correctly. Given there was 31 mil shares left on March 18th I would think they are close to done but we won't really know for certain.

Anyone watching level 2 should watch the trading carefully. Yesterday was a perfect example of what I said prior, alot of spoof (fake) bids to get retail to bid over that price so that the seller could sell at a 'real' market price to whomever they have negotiated the sale with.

Things to look for

1. Time stamps of both bids and asks. One has to ask, how is it that for months there are both a bid and ask showing up with time stamps of the exact same time? LOL Beyond coincidence

2. Look at how large bids are well off the ask and often if even very close won't push up for their shares even if the order is for 100k shares and the cost differential is 0.001 = $1 lol....clearly that bid isn't 'real'

My past commentary below

Current Bids

ETRF 0.012 263100 06/03 (seems to be a spoof)
ARCA 0.0111 20000 06/03
CSTI 0.011 10000 06/03
NITE 0.0101 10000 06/03
CANT 0.0085 250000 06/03 (definitely a spoof)

Basically the MM wants people to bid at lease 0.086 but preferably above 0.012

If you recall, I said the area the seller will still be making a profit was between 0.01 and 0.012 from my estimation and that people should bid below 0.01

That assertion was met with anger from our MM friends on this board.

Funny how the bid ask can tell a story that concurs!

At the end of the day no need to chase for shares from someone needing to sell and no catalyst.

Friday was a perfect example, hardly any volume, alot of spoofing going on, no buyers then late in the day we see the ask being walked down, and down and down.

Finally we saw 800k ish shares traded in the last hour as the seller wanted out. And at a much lower price than earlier in the day.

The game is to get retail to bid up, to chase, but if you wait, they will come right to you!

Hope I was able to help some here lower their average cost!

Quilt - long response below

I have never suggested others’ input is not valued, but I do think insight based on factual information is what matters not baseless opinions. That being said, if you are referring to my comments to tradetrak, they are not meant to be ‘dismissive’ of sharing that information at all, however he did compare the two issues suggesting that both were ‘futile conjecture’ – my response showed that not to be the case. Now the issue he raised is completely valid and could be helpful if the PTAB reviews its decision in this case on ‘real parties to this suit’. My point, however, was that we have no way to even estimate the odds on that so why even ask that specific question (ie what are the odds they reverse it- again we have no idea). The point was not that the raising of the changes is an invalid point – re read my post in that light.



This is incorrect on a number of fronts. The stock went to 1.0 to 5 cents in a number of MINUTES not 24 hours (and subsequently came right back off). Moreover, during that period, I explained through a number of posts what I believed to be happening, and that was the MM’s were trying to accomplish 2 things:

A. Get retail to chase the stock – I said to those here not to fall for it, not to chase but wait because it will come off. And the stock did, just as I said.

B. The second thing they were accomplishing was to set a new ‘mental’ threshold for buyers. If the stock was just at 5 cents, well at 2 or 1.8 its now ‘cheap’ right? Lol...well 2 days prior I called the break even for the seller at around 1.0-1.2 cents. I was met with aggressive anger from a couple of our MM friend posters when I suggested to only add to your position at that level or below. I suggested the MM’s wanted to sell above those levels and explained via Level 2 what to watch for. Sure enough if the MM can sell the convert shares at 1.8 vs a day prior where nothing was moving at 1.2-1.3 they are happy right? Hmm...think about that idea for a few minutes



I think it’s very obvious from the volume, factual information from the filings I provided and selling pressure that we’ve seen that the convert holder has sold off a major portion of that equity now. It’s very clear if you have been watching the daily volume. In addition, it is pretty clear ( I would think ) that their dumping thus far is not indicative of a group intending to hold stock. I had mentioned that they may hold many months ago, they clearly did not.

How much of that converted equity is left to sell is hard to say, but likely only a small amount given the volume Since March 18th (the day we know there was 31 mil left to sell). Case in point, today there was a large cross of approx 200k during the day, then 200k+ shares AH yet again.



True, but using the data we had at our disposal I clearly made the correct call and not only helped myself, but also helped others on this board looking to add (if they so chose). Why this bothers some, leads one to wonder what their motives are? As I said prior, perhaps some were here to assist the MM’s in moving the stock, their posts of converts being done prior to the selling even starting, their anger towards my fact based commentary which told investors to bid low, constant attacks with zero facts to refute my views sheds a great deal of light on intentions in my opinion.



Yes there has been some new information however, none of it is material to this stock. This is the point many here don’t seem to quite want to accept (I suppose that’s just eternal optimism which is a good trait but keeping emotion out of investing is more important).

A. Cuozzo has not been ruled on and we don’t know what the ruling will be

B. MCM and Cooper haven’t even been accepted to be heard yet.

C. Add to that, of the three cases, only MCM and Cooper have DIRECT implications on WDDD. As such, any commentary on those cases at this point is nothing other than hopeful conjecture. This is something people need to separate – hope from fact. I have said it over and over, Cuozzo does not have that much of a direct effect here, all that matters in our case is the PTAB ruling, or else this goes to zero.

D. Now the other 2 cases (if heard and if ruled in favor of MCM and Cooper) do have direct impacts but again, there is nothing to go on at this stage as SCOTUS hasn’t even set a date to determine whether they should even discuss accepting these cases yet. Moreover, until and unless a ruling in favor of MCM / Cooper occurs, those cases mean zero to us.

E. Articles from lawyers and amicus briefs supporting our views on a legal basis are opinion my friend, meaningless. All that matters is rulings, and in our situation those rulings in terms of materiality are the PTAB ruling (100% material) and Cooper/MCM. If SCOTUS hears and rules in favor of Cooper/MCM and thus the PTAB process is ruled unconstitutional its 100% material. However, we won’t know what that potential ruling will be (if any – they still have to be accepted as I said) until after the PTAB rules in our case. A ruling by SCOTUS in favor of those two (if it comes) could however help us if an appeal is needed. That being said, these cases won't be heard this year, it will be next SCOTUS session if heard at all.

F. Therefore, at this stage none of these cases have ANY impact on the value of the company, that is my point



I suggest you watch the trades daily. Today I saw the spoofs show again. What they do is provide a floor for the seller. Indeed, before the run happened today there were 2 bids for a total of approx 180k shares around .014 and the ask was .015. Suddenly, the ask moved to .02 and those bids disappeared, then the stock moved to 0.02. Clearly those were fake orders – I have explained how and why this happens in previous posts, look back if you so choose at my past posts.



There has been no new information that is material to this stock and that is why it is at 0.015, and that is why I keep reminding people not to chase (as we saw today – the buyer at 0.02 today is now 20% underwater).



I was trying to take a small profit then wait for it to come back down and add at a lower level. Had I sold it would have been a smart move. Again, it is based on what I have and am seeing going on in this stock. I have also stated all along this is a gamble. Believing in this stock means nothing, rulings mean everything, until then separating yourself from what you want to happen vs fact is a very dangerous game. Right now, as I have stated all along this is a pure coin flip, which may not even be 50 / 50 odds. Indeed the market is suggesting that its heavily favoring Bungie/ATVI - don't ignore that reality. This is not a 1.5 cent stock that is going to 3 bucks 'guaranteed' - we aren't smarter than the market, we are only willing to take on more risk, but understand that is what you are doing, nothing else.



The landscape for patent owners appears to be shifting yes, but the key here is, it HAS NOT YET shifted . Please realize that until we see a Cuozzo ruling in their favor, Cooper/MCM heard by SCOTUS and ruled in their favor, nothing has really changed.

One must realize that until there is a precedent that is ruled on here that DIRECTLY impacts this case nothing has really changed and this is why the stock is stuck at 0.012-0.015. Enfish is helpful but again, for every precedent in law, there is an equally strong counter precedent. So until we see Cooper/MCM in our favor where the PTAB rulings are said to be unconstitutional don’t think just because the PTAB is talking a bit softer these days that this means that their gaming and the law congress passed has changed, it has not. The same risks apply as always and are as much of a threat as they ever were.

Objectivity matters. It’s easy to say ah the stock is cheap, I should add. The stock is cheap for a reason, because of the risk. My posts have been very direct in explaining those risks and not over estimating the value of ‘words’ from the PTAB that may or may not have any impact on this ruling.

In reality, based on my read of the PTAB documents, they (PTAB) shouldn’t have even taken this case, moreover, they should have allowed further discovery to prove Bungie is an ATVI proxy, yet they did take the case. I think most would concur with these statements, lawyers or not. Indeed, if the PTAB was actually shifting to a more patent friendly stance, and has new 'guidelines' which include parties in suit - why have they not reviewed this case and thrown it out? Ask that, and that tells me the risk has not changed at all.

This last point is the most material to us and the one all us longs need to always remember. The fact the PTAB took this case when most who read the documents don’t think they should have says a great deal more than posturing about ‘changes’ internally to their review process. Believe it when we see it not prior.

Until then, the safe assumption should always be, only risk what you can afford to see go to zero. While I understand the desire to ‘think positively’ and one should as we are all long, but not at the detriment of losing objectivity and making assumptions that ‘things have changed’ for the better / implying risks have changed to some degree. They have not.

And in that vein, if you’re going to add, add as cheap as you possibly can. This is all common sense. At the end of the day, my views have not changed one iota. The risks are the same, the upside potential is the same, my posts have been to remind people about not forgetting about those risks and also to be aware there are those who want to profit off that ‘hopium’ retail investors tend to get.

All of my posts have been an effort to help retail investors get into the minds of those selling (and who want to make a profit off us while shifting a significant risk), and effectively trying to assist those here in how to ‘think less like a retail investor and more like and institutional one’.

My posts have been quite accurate on most topics. Sure I made an incorrect call on the ‘support’ but that was also predicated on the view that the convert holder would actually hold the equity, which was since proven an incorrect assumption.

Other than that, my posts if you take the time to read them, really think about them for a while, have done nothing other than assist those here in adding at lower prices thus decreasing their risk. Given the risk levels here, that is prudent and it seems many seem to be forgetting that the risks here are still the same and very significant. This last point is what sellers want you to forget, they want you to believe things are ‘better’ or more positive.

In reality, as I said prior, nothing has changed here in terms of REAL risks.

Therefore, until that risk level actually changes, I will not ‘take it easy’ on those attempting to take advantage of retail investors on this board.

I would disagree with your assertion that:

1. For those looking to buy, add/average down trying to determine how much of the converted equity was left to be sold based on filings and trading volume was a very beneficial exercise. And while challenging to get to a 'perfect’ number, one could still get to a fair approximation based on those filings, trading volume and logic.

2. While the answer would never be absolutely certain the value was correct, one could realistically come to a somewhat fair estimate of where the convert holder stood in relation to how many shares were left to sell. The key here being a fair ‘estimate’, that while not 100% accurate, still can give someone some directional guidance of when to add.

3. The point of that process was clearly to help those looking to buy or add, and assist them in not overpaying.

4. Indeed, my analysis was fairly accurate, so you may call it a futile, unnecessary, etc, I call it using the public documents at our disposal, using logic and basic math to do your utmost to add at as low a price as possible given the information available to date. This is simply what good traders and investors do as it allows them to lower their risk/exposure for a certain amount of dollar value.

5. Now the outcome of this is straightforward. Someone looking to buy or average down, had they held off as I suggested, could have added double the shares at 0.010-0.012 as they could have at 0.02. Indeed, that exercise assisted me in adding at lower levels than I otherwise would have had I not done the work / analysis– so there was indeed value in going through that process.

6. This is clearly (at least to me) materially different than trying to figure out if the PTAB will change their decision on further discovery. One can be estimated to a certain degree of error (the convert issue), the other no one has any insight or information which is reliable or even somewhat useful such that it can help derive any sort of estimate within any degree of certainty / error . This would be the equivalent of us asking ‘What will SCOTUS rule on Cuozzo” – ie NO ONE knows or can ever discern anything as to what that result will be.

7. Effectively, in the case of the converts, there was a way to estimate where we were in relation to selling. As such, the analysis could assist buyers directionally (ie will the heavy selling continue so there will be downward pressure or not), so there was utility in that exercise. In terms of your question, since there is no way to estimate whether a review will occur and what the result would be with any degree of accuracy, there would not be any utility. Thus, there is a significant difference in the questions.

8. On your last comment, I have not seen a filing with the PTAB asking for another review as you have suggested. I would be happy to see one if you can provide a link to that, but I look on the PTAB site daily and do not see it there. As such, I am not sure what you are referring to as there are no public documents related to a request from WDDD for another review and further discovery from my search of that site.

Tradetrak, I suggest you read the actual decision to implement the IPR (if you have not already, and if so, re visit it), on this question.

I don't think anyone here is a patent lawyer, and even if so, handicapping whether the PTAB would allow that additional discovery is somewhat of a moot point, we can only sit and wait. My view is creating 'hopium' is pointless, wait and see what happens.

On that topic however, if you read the filing by the PTAB, you will see they addressed it already. The only question (which none of us are capable of answering and only the PTAB can, thus my point), is how their old views are aligned or misaligned with the new guidance.

It could very well be that the PTAB could simply say, we said in the past that all you (WDDD) had was mere allegation (which indeed was part of their past argument), or they could revisit it and say well in light of the new guidelines we are taking a more nuanced approach and perhaps this should be reviewed.

Again, none of us have any insight of value on this, but my guess is, most of these administrative agencies don't like backtracking on decisions. Given the past arguments they made not to allow further discovery (which I concur should have been granted just from justice perspective), I would be very surprised to see them change that view.

Umm....Not sure what your question since you kind of answered it yourself?

But here you go since you can't seem to follow the factual information I presented. I will walk you through it ok?

1. The Proxy said as of March 17th there were "31,183,333 shares reserved for the noteholder" right? You just agreed right? Shall we go over this part again? 31,183,333 shares for the noteholder right? On March 17th right? You just stated that right?

2. Ok, so now that we know there were 31,183,333 shares for the noteholder on March 17th...follow closely ok!

3. That means on March 18th, the next day there were CLEARLY 31 MILLION SHARES LEFT TO GET RID OF WASN'T THERE?

4. And I am fairly certain that based on mathematical principles, when rounding numbers you round any number below 5 down, so that would mean when rounding 31,183,333 shares for the noteholder down, you would say 31 million.

5. Glad I could clarify your confusion 'genius'

1. In response, well I have seen someone mention that "1 mil shares of WDDD is a good number" - oddly this commentary was made just prior to our seller needing to unload 30 million shares.

2. The comment I mentioned, coupled with the following paint an interesting picture (again all of this prior to the convert dumping -which is quite telling to anyone with an ounce of logic). Add to that the attacks I faced when suggesting the convert wasn't close to done, when I was correct, and well...again an ounce of logic here :)










Price does not matter? Really? For whom? Those trying to unload to sucker retail? Hmm



Suggesting the 'sells' were actually buys on numerous occasions?









This last one was one of the best? Make something happen for the company? Like what tell the PTAB to rule in their favor? LOL

If you cannot discern what is going on from that small fraction of the type of posts 'promoting' the stock prior to a major dump of shares , well I cannot help you.

3. I suggest you do indeed read all the posts prior to commenting, as your comment doesn't really make much sense if you have not done so does it? Ie in order to determine the validity of my comment that you quoted, well you should indeed read all the posts prior to implying the comment was incorrect

4. Indeed if you read those posts prior to the WDDD convert selling starting, you may get an interesting view on some of the commentary here.

Good luck

Yes, even at 80% it works however, we do not know when they started selling.

My point was simple, it is only NOW / today someone could argue that the convert is 'done'.

That being said, given we've still seen some sizable trades / crosses and AH activity today, so it (the convert) doesn't yet appear done.

I suggest any longs read my commentary about being patient here. There is really no catatyst to move this stock other than the PTAB ruling, thus there is zero reason to chase.

Anyone suggesting people should buy buy buy, millions of shares, may indeed be trying to help someone selling and not you.

Interesting theories based on no proof as you just stated. Let me help you out with actual WDDD FACTUAL INFORMATION AND DATA, but first:


1. I have at many times pointed out where to find the data, indeed I recall someone asking how to find it. I have mentioned and provided quotes directly from the 10k and proxy on numerous occasions on this board, and indeed you had responded to a number of those posts in disagreement. The factual WDDD information has been provided, perhaps you chose not to read it?

2.The proxy, as I have stated about 8 times or more now, has the most recent value of the converts. Again, most on this board are aware since they do read the financials and my posts and concur. An experienced investor understands that using company sources is really the only reliable way to determine factual information. Some choose to ignore this basic tenet of investment diligence.

3. Here's some basic math, yet again. Now, at this stage the converts may indeed be done, none of us know, but math suggests a possibility (or at least close as of today). However, since we're revisiting something I proved to be correct on in the past, I will remind that indeed, when we were told the converts were 'done' because someone's 'source mm' said they were, this was factually incorrect and misinformation.

4. Indeed, when our friend stated that the converts were done (as per the quotes belo), there is no possible way they could have been. At that point I expressed that view, provided backup from the financials and even then for some reason a few posters seemed to want others to believe the convert was done when it was not even close. We have discussed my views on why those posters seemed to vehemently argue, not provide factual information, and seemed to want others to believe the converts were done. We'll leave it to those looking deeper into the trading to determine why ;)

OP1 Quote 4/25/2016


OP1 Quote 5/02/2016


Proxy Commentary



I have provided the above quote numerous times. Now its important to observe the dates of our friend's comment about the converts being 'done' or close to 'done' based on his sources, relative to what the company said in and around those dates, the amount left, and the trading volume.

March 18 Proxy date - 31 mil left
April 25th - "Almost done"
May 2nd - "Converts done" (apparently)

So let's look at the volume in between the date that we knew there was 31 mil to come and the date we were told the converts were done.

Total Volume March 18 - May 2:
15,134,200

Reserved for Convert as Per Proxy: 31,183,333

Based on FACTS - Clearly on May 2nd the convert could not be done or even close according to the proxy and trade volume, even if ALL the volume was the convert

Assuming 85% of Volume is Convert (could be higher could be lower)
12,864,070

Approx Remaining Shares as at May 2nd 2016
18,319,263

Total Volume March 18 to May 26
38,973,600.00

85% of Total Volume Since March 18
33,127,560.00

FACTS MATTER.

That's odd, were you also putting in multiple orders between 1.3 4.2, onwards that didn't get filled?

LOL...there was manipulation occurring, I watched it on level 2 as it was happening.

I tried to sell at 4.2 cents (a small amount of my holdings) and it didn't sell.

I really hope no one here was suckered into chasing the stock as the MMs (Cantor and Citadel) gamed this stock a day ago up to 5 cents.

We are fairly certain they are the convert sellers and will be confirming with Mr. Kidrin. Ironically, I believe a past post suggested Citadel was a retail seller (as a factual statement) when I know personally from dealing with them they are an institutional seller (and reality is MM's don't primarily handle 'retail' trade flow - anyone familiar with how MM's work would understand this - or anyone familiar with market basics and economics - there is just not enough money in managing primarily retail trade flow).

Again, if those here had listened to me when the MM's tried to unload the shares to retail you could be buying today at 0.014 vs 0.05. One poster mentioned well you could have sold at 0.05 - I tried to take some small profits on 150k shares @0.042, I couldn't sell them. The move from 0.013 to 0.05 a day ago was pure manipulation as I suggested. Completely low volume move, likely MMs trading with each other to push the price. If you can't move stock at the bid, its not a real buyer is it?

Indeed, hopefully we will determine if there are any on this board assisting those MM's in the coming months, as that is part of the process that is in motion.

:)

Anyone know why a company dilutes? It's because their cash from operations cannot cover their costs to operate

Just some basic financial information for those who preach about adjusted ebitda and revenues lol!!!!

LOL what a bag of crap this is!

Stark and TSTE:

TSTE

Not a big spike. MM's are trying to rid the equity from the convertibles.

Look at the past 2 weeks. Seen high volume. Alot of gaming going on with the MMs right now.

Don't chase this stock, no reason, they are trying to sucker people into bidding up so they can dump the converted equity at higher prices.

Stark:

You are reading the ask which is 'fake'. The MMs are trying to get retail to chase this stock. The majority of volume today was at 0.013 and maybe 200k shares have moved since.

This is gaming, and I am sure people are going to chase this. This is called a 'head fake'. Don't fall for it folks.

I am happy its up but I don't believe for a second it will sustain. Low volume moving it from 0.013 to 0.05.

Personally think they are trying to sucker buyers in to get rid of the shares they have left.

Cantor and Citadel - shame shame, I wonder if they have any employees on these boards? Should be easy to find out eventually whether that is the case or not.

Odd that someone mentioned that 'Citadel' was a retail seller (when I know that not to be the case), seems like it was an attempt to deflect attention huh?

Oh did Cantor just buy 100 shares at .025 because I hit a nerve?

Lol nice push to 0.04 on the fake bid gents! Keep trying to sucker retail! No one is buying are they?

See how that fake bid keeps pushing folks? Don't chase!

LOL this is awesome!! It's like they are reading this board and each time I post they reset the bid higher!

Oh, that's right, that is what's happening!

Really? 0.0249 bid 0.0245 ask? What's the $ value difference there folks?

LOL. If it was a real bid why wouldn't they "HIT" the ask for those 10k shares?

Here's some help...ITS ONE WHOLE DOLLAR!!!! LOL

;)

This is fun, our MM is reading this board and getting mad at me and playing with the bid /ask. Literally minutes after I post a message explaining the gaming I see a reaction in the Bid/Ask lol!! And its on our spoof orders not real ones!

seems I was 100% right and some people are going to prison!!!

Edit: oh seems they read my post and realized a one dollar difference was too obvious, since raised the ask to 0.04 on no news lol..

And 2 mil shares of the convert out

Ouch, love being so right about the bs going on here

:)

I checked the SEC filings, nothing yet reported.

Not sure if any institutions are in, but someone is soaking up alot of shares and I am surprised they haven't breached 5% yet. It could be time delay, you have up to 10 days to report once you breach that level.

Keep an eye out for that, it would answer some questions as to who is buying

Is that 110k @0.0125 you? Edit - ok its gone so wasn't you - def the spoofer

I must have angered the MM / Spoofer with my last comment, they raised the bid ask

LOL - so transparent and the emotion is fully visible. Each time I have called them out on this board the anger is reflected in the bid ask.

They want to get you to chase folks. Funny how easy it was to get shares at .013 and now they just move it up hey, and you can't get them at that price now? Oh yes you can, because those aren't real bids or real asks LOL....same market makers gaming ladies and gents

Be patient as I said, no catalyst, still material selling, and a TON of risk this could be worthless

No valid reason to bid up, rather all rational reasons point to lowering your bid and exposure

Take a look at my previous post and this and the time stamps lol!

Current Bid

CANT 0.017 10000 14:35
CSTI 0.0155 10000 14:33
CDEL 0.0124 14300 14:33


Current Ask

CSTI 0.023 10000 14:33

Previous Bid

CSTI 0.013 10000 13:54 (Spoof)
CANT 0.0125 110000 14:06 (Spoof)

See what's going on?

Indeed, it seems now more than ever I was 100% correct and there are MMs using this board as a tool. This would be illegal and I look forward to ensuring if such behavior is occuring, that those involved will be prosecuted.

Yep, 600k just went through (in addition to the 2 big trades earier today), convert still going!

Seems there is an agreed upon price that the big buyer will purchase at (definitely seems to be someone soaking up alot of these shares) unless market dips below that, which may be the reason we see the spoofs out there, trying to maximize the price for the seller. By creating a floor, a retailer sees the bid and realizes they need to bid up / over that spoof to get shares. Thus, it creates a floor for the seller (prevents market from going below what the agreed sale price was).

This view likely explains why some were angry when I suggested those here lower their bids. My guess is that the price "agreed to" by the seller, locks in a decent return for them. My guestimates of their break even seem to be pretty close given where the vast majority of block selling is occurring. This view is likely that cause of why some seemed threatened by me suggesting longs lower their bids below that break even guestimate. ie if a long didn't bid up and someone hits that bid then the price at which they agreed upon to sell that block may be adjusted downwards affecting the sellers returns. Funny how emotions regarding seemingly innocuous (and clearly helpful for longs) posts can lead one to what is really going on if you think logically!


It is also the reason a few kept suggesting the 'covert was done' and there would be little downward pressure as a result.

:)

Love being right! Hope I saved others some money as well! And lowered their risk exposure as a result!

Bids

CSTI 0.013 10000 13:54 (Spoof)
CANT 0.0125 110000 14:06 (Spoof)
ETRF 0.012 40000 09:30
CDEL 0.011 18000 14:10
NITE 0.01 200000 13:53 (Spoof)

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/05/20/usptos-ipr-process-constitutional/id=69310/

You're very welcome!

Glad it helped you...now let's hope the PTAB rules in our favor and that 200k is going to be in dollars!

Could also end up as zero but at least you paid alot less for that risk!

Seems like there has been a couple of big crosses today, convert still leaking out it would appear!

Careful with those bids folks!

Maturity date? Oh this was posted a while back for you. It has use for all I would have thought since its some 'basics about convertibles' and since that seems to be a source of your constant questions about this stock, I would assume its definitely not off-topic! This should help clarify your concerns and is completely consistent with my previous points on the topic.

:) Happy reading and learning!

-----------------------------------------------------
Vanilla convertible bonds are the most plain convertible structures. They grant the holder the right to convert into certain amount of shares determined according to a conversion price determined in advance. They may offer coupon regular payments during the life of the security and have a fixed maturity date where the nominal value of the bond is redeemable by the holder. This type is the most common convertible type and is typically providing the asymmetric returns profile and positive convexity often wrongly associated to the entire asset class: at maturity the holder would indeed either convert into shares or request the redemption at par depending on whether or not the stock price is above the conversion price.

Any convertible bond structure, on top of its type, would bear a certain range of additional features as defined in its issuance prospectus:

Conversion price: The nominal price per share at which conversion takes place, this number is fixed at the issuance but could be adjusted under some circumstance described in the issuance prospectus (e.g. Underlying stock split). You could have more than one conversion price for non-vanilla convertible issuances.

Issuance premium: Difference between the conversion price and the stock price at the issuance.

Conversion ratio: The number of shares each convertible bond converts into. It may be expressed per bond or on a per centum (per 100) basis.

Maturity/redemption date: Final payment date of a loan or other financial instrument, at which point the principal (and all remaining interest) is due to be paid. In some cases, there is no
Final conversion date: Final date at which the holder can request the conversion into shares. Might be different from the redemption date.

This point goes to standard vs non standard indenture / terms I mentioned prior. ie None of us know the exact terms of the converts so assuming they were "standard' is a rational assumption. If our converts were non-standard, we wouldn't know until we see the quarterly and we saw early conversion (again since we haven't seen the indenture). Given the ability to convert prior to maturity is 'non-standard' it would be written in as a negotiated point. In addition, going back to the point on the extension granted on the converts, this further led to the logical conclusion that conversion was tied to maturity (as it is in a standard indenture/occurs most commonly when underwriting a convert)....So yes I know what I am talking about sorry! . Anyone suggesting otherwise really should continue to educate themselves on the basics of converts before making such claims. Assuming a convert with 'a-typical' clauses is actually illogical and certainly when factoring in the extension, an even more illogical conclusion. So forgive me for thinking logically and basing my views on typical convert structures and recent events (extensions which lent itself to the same logical conclusion).

Coupon: Periodic interest payment paid to the convertible bond holder from the issuer. Could be fixed or variable or equal to zero.

Yield: Yield of the convertible bond at the issuance date, could be different from the coupon value if the bond is offering a premium redemption. In those cases the yield value would determine the premium redeption value and intermediary put redemption value.

Convertibles could bear other more technical features depending on the issuer needs:

Call features: The ability of the issuer (on some bonds) to call a bond early for redemption. This should not be mistaken for a call option. A Softcall would refer to a call feature where the issuer can only call under certain circumstances, typically based on the underlying stock price performance (e.g. current stock price is above 130% of the conversion price for 20 days out of 30 days). A Hardcall feature would not need any specific conditions beyond a date: that case the issuer would be able to recall a portion or the totally of the issuance at the Call price (typically par) after a specific date.

Put features: The ability of the holder of the bond (the lender) to force the issuer (the borrower) to repay the loan at a date earlier than the maturity. These often occur as windows of opportunity, every three or five years and allow the holders to exercise their right to an early repayment.

Contingent conversion (aka CoCo): Restrict the ability of the convertible bondholders to convert into equities. Typically, restrictions would be based on the underlying stock price and/or time (e.g. convertible every quarter if stock price is above 115% of the conversion price).[3] Reverse convertibles in that respect could be seen as a variation of a Mandatory bearing a contingent conversion feature based. More recently some CoCo's issuances have been based on Tier-1 capital ratio for some large bank issuers.

Reset: Conversion price would be reset to a new value depending on the underlying stock performance. Typically, would be in cases of underperformance (e.g. if stock price after a year is below 50% of the conversion price the new conversion price would be the current stock price).

Change of control event (aka Ratchet): Conversion price would be readjusted in case of a take-over on the underlying company. There are many subtype of ratchet formula (e.g. Make-whole base, time dependent...), their impact for the bondholder could be small (e.g. ClubMed, 2013) to significant (e.g. Aegis, 2012). Often, this clause would grant as well the ability for the convertible bondholders to "put" i.e. ask for the early repayment of their bonds.

Now I don't like using Wiki as a source but it explains the basics in layman's terms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convertible_bond

This should put to rest the nonsense about my facts. I have been correct in my views, have provided value add insight to this board on the legal aspects of this case, the financial situation (via my analysis of the financial reports, proxy, and market behavior), and what I expect from the price in the near term.

Those who disagree, should read those documents, as well as this post, provide factual information and analysis based on that factual information from those filings etc that suggest my numbers and knowledge are incorrect

From everything I have posted, I am correct. Not perfect, but correct.

Good luck

Wow that's interesting, I wonder if google is paying them directly? LOL....my guess is yes, cheaper, no one would notice vs a judge lol

The upside here is clearly an error would lead to appeals - certainly on the review side.

The fact that the USPTO is stating how its examiners should read information, if they do not, well they open themselves up now.

This is interesting, the USPTO seems to be a very scared now hey?

Here's the answer I posted to the board a while back to which no one answered.

Issue relates to En Banc odds

The fact this was unanimous limits the odds of an en banc hearing. In order for this to be overturned it will likely have to get to scotus, who in my view would not. This is an accurate and correct ruling and great for patent holders, especially given the ruling was unanimous.

LOL

Perhaps you need to read my point and comprehend it before you attempt to...well you're at it again

I'd rather not explain something that is quite easily explained to most, since the POINT is quite rudimentary

And yes you can hit an ask with your bid - lol such a silly comment. Oh, and I'll rely on my on experience for "Wall St" lexicon, not that of someone who's only read about it!

:)

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Ninth-Circuit-En-Banc-Procedure-Flowchart.pdf

Suggest you simply google many of these questions, much of the details are out on the web if you dig hard

This link is for the 9th circuit but the process is pretty much the same.

Yes, I never quite understood this, other than Bungie and ATVI were aware they didn't have any legal grounds and are simply praying for the usual PTAB delay hoping WDDD would either run out of money or give up (efficient infringement) and they assume since they are big tech Ms Lee will given them the BJ they are asking for.

Indeed. And I really didn't believe that would have an effect on the courts until we saw what happened with VRINGO.

It really lead me to read about the AIA, put the pieces together and see 'through' to the corruption now embedded in the system.

Google is pals with POTUS and the CIA. They get their lawyers to write the AIA, congress is clueless and buys the 'troll' narrative, and they codify in law, theft for big tech vs the little guy.

Only SCOTUS can correct this. I truly didn't want to believe it in the past but it is clear. I call it codified corruption.

That's why I have said over and over here, be careful, it very easily could simply go to zero not on technical or legal grounds, simply because that's what the PTAB does for big tech. This last comment is often the hardest for those in these stocks (including myself in the past as I said) to admit. It goes against everything we are taught and believe, that the system is 'fair'.

In reality, we've seen it is not. I just hope all this attention puts the PTAB on good behavior for the next 6 months. If it reels them in even a bit, our odds are enhanced.

Certainly if SCOTUS starts addressing issues with this group via Cuozzo (which certainly has raised red flags with the Chief Justice), MCM, and Cooper....we could be fortunate in our timing. Unlike those of us in VRNG.

https://www.wilmerhale.com/uploadedFiles/Shared_Content/Editorial/Publications/Documents/2016-05-19-IPR-Motions-To-Amend-Rays-Of-Hope-Despite-Gloomy-Statistics.pdf

After reading that, definitely sounds like alot of smoke and mirrors. Nothing substantive and my guess the other article (while I haven't read it) provides the similar, as it talks about 'case studies' not material changes.

Realize, material changes would be an admission they are handling things incorrectly, something they would never willingly admit to.

It will take the courts to hammer them for them to materially change- that way they have something else to point the finger at. Ie they can say 'congress wanted it this way, we did it, the courts say different, so we'll listen to the courts'. It's called deniability and these crooked mf's will use it.

Seems the pressure is building, all positive but again, still a total crap shoot here. Until we see REAL changes, this can be a bit of smoke and mirrors to deflect as there is attention on this corrupt group.

A few 'hey look we told you we don't kill all the patents and we do allow adjustments' could quickly turn the gaze away.

Let's hope it works out for us but it's still gambling here, so all should be aware (thus my point on not overpaying for stock). Often people get caught up with these stocks thinking 'its cheap just keep adding', or a some of our 'mm' friends tried to suggest 'ah its pennies what the difference' - well we know why some were trying to push people to buy don't we ;)

Basically, its cheap for a reason, because it can easily be worthless, so pay as little as you can for the call option we have here.

Nothing in this stock matters until and unless we get OUR patents held up at the PTAB, other changes, focus on them is great but this is a pure binary play on that ruling right now.

Hopefully, someone posts the full articles, I don't have access.

I see,

I did not post all the bids, was providing an example of how my suggestion works in practice, that is all.

LOL

wink wink ;)

Bid

CDEL 0.0131 15000 15:52

Ask

CDEL 0.0155 250000 15:52

FYI:

An indemnity contract arises when one individual takes on the obligation to pay for any loss or damage that has been or might be incurred by another individual. The right to indemnity and the duty to indemnify ordinarily stem from a contractual agreement, which generally protects against liability, loss, or damage.

Yes, I see that but I am not clear on your question, since you suggested I mentioned that order and have not.

Sorry which bid @ 0.0128 are you referring to? I never mentioned that