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.
WELL, I hope that is enough response regarding the dishonesty of the company.
I still have not heard an answer from coyote to my post with these questions.
Hey - here's a question for anyone.
1. What type of litigation do people think the "new" and "strengthened" 774 patent will support? Who will be the alleged infringers and what products?
2. What type of litigation with 737 support when it gets out of re-exam? Who will be the alleged infringers and products?
I can't think of any, yet EDIG, in another potentially dishonest statement (reminiscent of the "elements" statement) claims another round of litigation is coming. Against whom are they going to litigate and on what basis?
LL
I know people with dozens of patents that have never been "monetized." Don't you love that term?
LL
Hey - here's a question for anyone.
1. What type of litigation do people think the "new" and "strengthened" 774 patent will support? Who will be the alleged infringers and what products?
2. What type of litigation with 737 support when it gets out of re-exam? Who will be the alleged infringers and products?
I can't think of any, yet EDIG, in another potentially dishonest statement (reminiscent of the "elements" statement) claims another round of litigation is coming. Against whom are they going to litigate and on what basis?
LL
And I directed you to them. Please note I don't FEEL they are dishonest. They ARE dishonest.
Glad I was able to help you out.
LL
Jeez, Never, are you spying on my computer? I'm typing the same thing you are typing. To coin a phrase, honest minds think alike.
LL
I don't think I ever stated that THE COMPANY STATED that was their business model. I stated it. It would be shocking if the company stated it because it would be a true statement.
LL
Never - part of the "business model". They are the anti- Robin Hood. Steal from the poor, give to the rich.
LL
I'm not sure what you are getting at, but I can refer you to locations where you can find a lot of misleading statements about vlume sales to healthcare, succcessful trials, billion dollar OEMs, expectations of Nasdaq listings, "elements" which would interest institutional investors - wow, the list is too long to fit into this window.
The locations of these misleading and non-factual statements are the EDIG website, where the "PRs" might be found, and the Agora message board, where multiple email statements from RP exist in the archives.
This is a softball. If you are asking me to go find all of them and post them again for you then I have to respectfully decline. There are too many, there is not enough space to list them, and I have other things to do. But since you now know where they are you can find whatever you need.
LL
You asked - I answere. If RP's lips were moving he was lying, or at least embellishing.
I am sure Never was being hyperbolic and just making a point about the 800 Million shares. He might have as easily said 1 Billion. The point is that some sort of misdirectional "news" that is "good for shareholders" will be coming in the next few months. Only it won't be news and it won't be good for shareholders.
LL
I believe that your numbers and your cut and paste of RP's email are indeed factual. I believe that RP is incapable of being completely honest and that any words that came out of his mouth or his computer were designed to put himn and EDIG in the best possible light insofar as shareholders are concerned - I also believe that a large percentage of those words have been well proven by subsequent events to be completely non-factual and dishonest.
LL
A. More words of truth from RP.
B. Why would they need more shares when they have so successfully lined their own pockets with our money with the current amount of shares?
C. The time may very well come when they "need" more shares tyo continue their self-serving "business model."
LL
That is a powerful piece of information. I am on tenterhooks awaiting the next news. Edig's attorneys are "close" to making a response. I assume that means "Edig's attorneys will "soon" be filing their response.
LL
It's good to have different opinions isn't it? The one thing we can't have different opinios about is the PPS and it's steady decline since EDIG began its "monetization" strategy.
LL
The lack of activity in posting (on all boards) reflects the lack of value in this stock and resulting lack of interest. I would wager that 99% of all transactions over thte past month or more has been undertaken by current shareholders.
LL
I think that is the best case scenario. But if I'm a defendant I'm not paying a penny because of the Markman and I'm asking for a re-exam. I don't see it.
LL
You are correct. I should have said there was no intrinsic value for shareholders.
LL
I don't think they were pitfalls or sabotages, they were unmitigated disasters. Look at the PPS and track it against the litigation and settlements. As Danel and others have pointed out the insiders were selling hundreds of thousands of shares against every settlement.
LL
Brad, as I have stated for years DM is not know as a top tier IP litigation firm, never has been and never will be. And regardless of whether or not they were ever held out to be such, they did not do a sterling job for EDIG. However, they did make a good sum of money themselves with their 40% fee.
And I love that stuff about the first round getting the deal when the first round was the only real money EDIG ever got.
LL
Brad - all good points, It doesn't take an attorney to see that this was a much less successful venture for DM the second time around, and that it was so bad after the markman that they basically abandoned it. That's why I love Fred's disingenuous language that they are still "handling" EDIG's litigation. What litigation?
If DM didn't even challenge the markman or try to get any money out of the remaining defendants, and if "settlements dropped precipitously after round 1, then why would they even entertain the idea of a round 3? That's the sort of thinking that the attorneys engage in when trying to decide if a case meets the 75% yardstick for contingency representation. This one didn't even meet the yardstick for appeal.
LL
You did clearly mention the Markman. And I clearly stated the significant obstacle it poses now for EDIG and for any law firm who ponders doing contingency work for them. I can state as more than an opinion that if such a Markman had existed when EDIG first approached DM that they would never have met the 75% probability ranking which DM markets on their web site. It would be more like 25% or less.
So, given that turn of events, it is indeed my opinion that DM will drop EDIG unless they are paid on an hourly basis going forward. And I don't think EDIG can afford that.
So say I, flat out.
LL
C.
DM has made money, the management has gotten paid, and the PPS has steadliy eroded. There is no intrinsic value in EDIG's patents, so whether it were Fish and Richardson, Baker McKenzie, or DM, the same result would have obtained. IMO.
Good questions though.
LL
I think the point is that many of us believe DM will see no upside to representing EDIG anymore and Fred's message about their "handling" EDIG's litigation was less than inspiring.
As to the conflict issue, that is languguage from at least two and perhpas three years ago - if DM were going to be conflicted out and an additional firm sought you can bet it would have happened before now.
LL
Never, that would be right in line with every move they have made away from each of their failed strategies to the new carrot. I don't think DM is going to hang around and I think EDIG will have to pay out of pocket to get new lawyers, so some statement along the lines you hypothesize would be probable.
LL
Good one. How about this? I suggest that all those who stop by for a visit actually go on sales calls and strategy meetings with him in Chicago, Denver, St. Louis and other places to get a real feel for the company's prospects. Oh, wait, I already did that.
LL
kool - hilarious. Let me know when you see any of that happening.
LL
kool, great questions. Only there is no law firm. Cocumelli is a sole practitioner who works out of his house - I forget what city he lives in. He is GC of Simplenet.com which is where he devotes most of his time. He then has his EDIG duties whatever they are. This is much like RP, who collected salaries from two companies.
Unlike Fred, who has no excuse for working part time, Cocumelli is paid to work part time.
LL
Plus, Allen C is the full time General Counsel for Simplenet.com, another San Diego area company. How bout them apples?
LL
Oh, sorry - that's not my understanding. It's not dependent upon the date of patent filing as far as litigation is concerned. However, I think he is right regarding USPTO practices and implications. Filing date is very important now re USPTO.
LL
Cassandra,
I think you are too charitable in your assessment of Falk's contributions.
Besides, his "communciations" to the shareholders who still believe (such as we are very busy, we expect to monetize Nunchi, we expect to bring more litigation, etc.) seem to resonate well with that audience. So while those of us who want a return on our investment are disgusted, others seem downright cheerful.
I guess it depends on what type of CEO one wants.
LL
Never, that is correct. The law allows for defendants to choose to be enjoined, grants some leeway to the court, and sets forth exigent circumstances for joinder. However, any future defendant in a matter brought by EDIG (I don't think there are going to be any, and if there are they will not be represented by DM) would be well served by trying to remain separate to created cost challenges for the plaintiff.
As I said, I don't think it's going to make any difference to EDIG because I doubt there will be any more litigation, just as I doubt we will ever hear of Nunchi again, at least in terms of any sales or licenses. We'll continue to be spoon fed pablum about patent and TM applications and "progress" in those areas no doubt.
LL
No offense, but the meaning of my post is crystal clear. Sorry if you are unable to figure it out. Or you might do some "DD" on it. Fish and Richardson wrote a great article (available in powerpoint) back in 2011 which explains both USPTO and litigation implications. Or, short form, you can just read the information I posted and decipher it easily.
LL
This is old news. This law is almost a year old and was not retroactively applicable, though was deemed to apply to pending litigation as of the enacted date, September of 2011.
Since EDIG did not have success with joinder of multiple defendants anyway this cannot hurt them in terms of substantive claims. However, it is one more reason why I doubt DM will be taking on the cost burden of bringing additional litigation as now discovery will have to be undertaken individually instead of collectively.
Pertinent information about this law follows:
Joinder of Parties (Sec. 19, § 299)
Mere allegations that multiple accused infringers each have infringed a patent is insufficient for joinder in one action.
?Parties that are accused infringers may be joined in one action as defendants, or have their actions consolidated for trial, only if:
(1)any right to relief is asserted against the parties jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences relating to the making, using, importing into the United States, offering for sale, or selling of the same accused product or process; and
(2)questions of fact common to all defendants or counterclaim defendants will arise in the action.
LL
Never, wow, that's even more than the original 150 "infirngers" who were going to pay us all those millions. I think we should "get the word out."
LL
It's hardly DD. And people can't make accurate decisions without seeing the information in its proper context which cassandra was kind enough to post.
LL
What's the point of this post? A good lawyer does a search using tools like Delphion or Micropatent (now Thomson Innovation) or Lexis Patent and throws in everything that comes up, regardless of validity or litigation history.
And the post is misleading in that I'm sure they cited dozens or hundreds of other patents as well, whereas you cited 5 or 6.
So what is the point of this misleading post? That eDIG hass something to do with Qualcomm? It doesn't.
LL
The one area in which EDIG can be said to be successful is staying under the radar. Unfortunately it is a permanent condition.
LL
Brad, nice, accurate posting as usual.
LL
A new twist on a long held theory Most eloquent and original. "Serial Exaggeration" - that's a first and should go down in the EDIG Sucker Hall of Shame.
"Never have so many paid for so much for a stock that has delivered so little. When you look on the history of the company you realize the "product" was the share holders." It cannot be said any better than this.
And I agree with you about the 1996 Norris case. Brad and I have both tried multiple times to get to the bottom of it, but no one will talk. I thought we would see it surface during the highly vaunted "patent" litigation, but we never saw hide nor hair. I'd love to get the skinny on that.
LL
If I could magically be returned by $275k or so I sunk into EDIG (plus all the money parker and I spent setting them up in the opportunities they rejected, I'd devote half of it to hiring the best lawyer I could to mercilessly go after EDIG for the hundreds of indignities they have visited upon their very loyal shareholders over the years.
These are clearly people who have no conscience, Woody included. Their business is to pretend to be in business. They are modern day snake oil salespeople.
LL
The patent is the secret sauce. And I think we both misspelled it - I got the two t's and you got the two l's. We are quite a team.
LL