I say again: nowhere in the judge's order do I see Skippy having the power to pick and choose what past agreements and settlements of which he approves and disapproves.

If this is true, then Skippy will have to set-aside the Dec. 2011 settlement outrage giving Daic all non-US rights to the patent plus 28% of any TM judgement. I have re-read the judge's charge to Skippy. Wherein does it indicate Skippy has such power?

Wrong. What we shareholders get in the end depends entirely upon whether the BOC/Daic agreements and "settlements" are valid. Does Daic own the entire non-US worldwide worth of the patent because of the Dec. 2011 farce settlement, plus 28% of the TM trial results? Does Daic get to keep his tens of millions of gifted shares? Do the BOC get to keep theirs? What about their claimed back pay plus bonuses plus interest now in the tens of millions of dollars? A lot depends upon Skippy's actions aside from pursuing TM and the auction.

Fine, but I have no idea whether you believe the receiver can or will void any of the BOC's "settlements" giving Daic and themselves huge piles of stock and money. Can you be more concise?

Bad news. Whether the gifting by the BOC to Daic was legitimate or not, the settlement was accepted by a court. Only Skippy knows for sure, and he ain't talkin'.

The alleged receiver -- let's call him "Skippy" in the absence of any evidence he actually exists or has done any work for CLYW -- may or may not -- if he exists -- have decided what bogus extorted settlements made between the CLYW Board of Crooks and Daic are valid. We have no idea, of course, eight months after being placed into receivership. Just more spice for the Calypso Sauce. We do have documentation that Daic somehow got a 1/10 of one percent ownership of the patent (Skippy has failed to provide any documentation or information of this allegation, either). That being the case, Daic has standing to pursue the TM case as a plaintiff. He also allegedly holds millions of shares- we don't know because Skippy has failed to make any ruling on that issue. If he is allowed to keep the tens of millions of bogus shares he was gifted by the BOC, he stands to make a fortune when the dust settles, CLYW is rolled-up, and the assets of the TM trial and patent sale are distributed. He was also given all non-US rights to the patent by the BOC in their final, monstrous and possibly unlawful "settlement" of December, 2011. That would net Daic billions of dollars -- perhaps hundreds of billion over the next 15 years. Not us; him.

That's about it.

Drago's attornies are running the plea to the court. But only the receiver can decide when and how much any monies can be distributed to the shareholders. If we win in court, that winning is then put aside by the receiver as a CLYW asset. I see no way Drago can somehow suck-off the money we win for himself although I suspect the bum will try. I also expect him to fail. The receiver has earned a big fat F in keeping us owners informed about anything, including which, if any, special Board of Crooks-to-Drago fraudulent settlements, stock, and cash have been funneled his way.

Then the patent will be auctioned for XX dollars, that money going 99.9% to CLYW and 0.1% to Drago. After any appeals by TM, there will be a final award plus 12%/year in interest as they appeal. Probably looking at a 70% chance of another 2-3 years for a resolution.

How much better to have to wait for an honest legal resolution of our shares than to be kept in limbo for eight years by a gang of thugs and liars who arguably should be in prison.

More to the point, does anyone know what the receiver's behavior has been in past such situations?

I am convinced that this is being watched very closely by many interested parties. About twice a month another cell provider announces a new seamless switching feature for their stuff. I am certain that after the final Markman, shareholders will receive offers -- probably privately -- to sell their shares.

I believe someone posted that the Markman judge's history indicated that in one case he ruled from the bench and that in another it was 57 days after the hearing that he posted his final decree. It's been 24 days for us. Frustrating -- even infuriating -- but within the bell curve.

It is frustrating.

Good point. This is especially true of GPS and ADF navigation in flying.

"ADF: the system used to find the most direct route to the thunderstorm."

Not so fast. If DT dumps TM, DT is on the hook. If TM merges with PCS, they are still on the hook. Otherwise, a company could void any legal financial loss by simply destroying the subsidiary.

>>Basically what i want to know is what is the issue important for clyw to win their patent case.

They stole our product and got rich from it while defrauding us.

>>What are the arguments the two sides make

Us: They blatantly stole our product and then got rich from it while defrauding us.

Them:

1. What product?
2. Who does it belong to?
3. How did we steal it?
4. What money did me make from it?
5. What agreement?
6. The Markman proves we have never used the alleged product.
7. There is no product.
8. There is no Calypso.
9. If there is a product, it doesn't apply to our business, anyhow.
10. We don't have such a product, anyway.
11. No speaka da Englise.

>>How likely is it clyw will win based on the judges definitions

Depends upon the makeup of the jury, how much they want to be on the jury, their ability to understand our case, their willingness to understand the case, their political and social views, what the attorneys can enter as evidence, and the judge.

I, too, have served on juries. I have also watched trials as a spectator. Clearly, our experiences are the opposite of one another.

Let me suggest this discussion is futile. Why? Because the only thing that counts is getting a jury decision that TM stole our patent and then used it to make billions. All else is a waste of time. Juries are by their nature uneducated and angry at having to sit on a jury. When presented by technical issues their eyes glaze over. The only way we are going to win this trial is through simple language: TM stole our stuff after promising not to, and then they got a lot of money for using it. There appear to be hundreds of incriminating documents towards this end. It is critical that we get to present them to the jury. It is then vital that we show how they stole our money. That's it. Signal drop over an inverse square of the frequency of a flux capacitor will only make it harder for CLYW to win. Juries get angry when it is clear they feel they have been made to look stupid. They then find for the defendant. This board discussion on electronics is a waste of time, my friends.

Do you really believe the judge would shut-down TM until the trial?

You are correct. I meant the virtual pps. I realize there is none since the stock was decertified from trading. Again, the silence from analysts since the Markman is baffling.

HR, can you explain the total lack of any professional analysis of the Markman results and how they impact the potential pps? I see no response from the tech or business communities.

Yes, the receiver is acting unprofessionally. That is worrisome.

This discussion is all very fascinating. But remember: the trial will be determined by a jury that TM will do ANYTHING to ensure is populated by people with no educational background. The way to win this is simple: convince the jury that TM stole something valuable that belongs to CLYW and that they then used it to get rich. Any other line of "trial think" is, frankly, futile.

I was at a trial where a doctor was guilty as sin of malpractice but won because the jury went cross-eyed trying to understand the scientific evidence and grew increasingly angry at having to spend two weeks in court. I hope our one-horse lawyers know something about "juryology."

Thanks for the downer. 8*(

Re. no final Markman decision being released yet:

So is any analysis of what the results mean for us.

Wrong again. Shares may always be traded privately.

**cough**pricemanipulation** cough**

Knows the stock will take-off soon. Wants to buy as much privately as he can before that happens.

Incorrect. We shareholders remain. The stock was decertified from trading but exists in our brokerage accounts, currently at par value ($0.001/share). Easily verified -- just log-into your brokerage account. This value will be changed when we win the TM suit, successfully sell the patent, and then divide-up the company assets.

I am puzzled by the complete silence in the aftermath of the Markman.

If I read this correctly, it will take scores of these cubes to replace one cell tower at an enormous expense.

IOW, the BOC may have pissed-away our patent's utility?

Interesting. The PR from Paraguay Public TV, trumpeting Turrini's appointment as the company president, no longer contains the statement that he owns 20% of CLYW.

I expect our getting money from our investment to be contingent upon every one of us signing an agreement not to sue Daic or the BOC for anything they have done. Wait for it.

All good questions.

No. The receiver is chartered by the judge -- the court -- to finish the TM case, sell the patent, maximize the value of the shares, pay legitimate creditors, distribute remaining assets to shareholders, and roll-up the company. He has no authority to investigate any wrong-doing, frustrating as that may be to many here.

Gridline is involved in wireless electricity meter technology and internet over electric lines.

Fine. Please publicly contact the receiver with your demands and be sure to then publicly post his response. LOL, indeed.

We, as shareholders in a company whose charter was incorporated in Delaware, have the right to call for an annual meeting. That's it, and good luck with it. As for demanding anything from the court or receiver, LOL! The court has ordered the company to be "rolled-up" and dissolved, following which creditors and shareholders will be compensated with the total company assets. The receiver is tasked with determining who is a valid creditor and who has valid shares. I don't envy him that job with people like Turrini suddenly claiming to have 40 million shares and Daic claiming to have all non-US rights to the patent. Let me suggest you spend your energy in other, more productive ways.

>>How does a company reference a patent and not at some level pay license for that patent?

Easy. Under the law, they don't have to. The Patent Office simply considers the information a reason to approve the new patent application.

We can let any poll be known to the receiver. He will ignore them, as he should.

In his PR from Paraguay, he claims he controls 20% of the company