I don't remember his saying that. He told the receiver to honor all legitimate stockholders and creditors. It is the receiver's job to determine legitimate creditors. There has been no word on his decision regarding the double secret probation vaporware settlement of Dec., 2011. That Daic has had to scramble to get a 0.1% interest in the patent suggests -- suggests -- that the secret settlement giving him 28% of the TM settlement and non-US ownership of the patent may be out the window. Turrini's PR from Paraguay claiming ownership of 20% of the company has no public documentation so showing.

Not buying it.

Just be sure you're sitting down when we get the bills from the Board of Crooks. Several years ago I actually interviewed Turrini regarding what the f^&k was going on with CLYW. He spun a wonderful tale of his selfless dedication against impossible odds and The Evil Dave Williams to saving the company. During the conversation he mentioned, to the best of my memory, that he was charging the company approximately $1M a year in deferred salary and bonuses. Of course, we haven't seen the actual bill the BOC is or will be submitting to the receiver for their back pay (plus interest).

Uh-huh. That's why they suppressed a patent worth billions for eight years. To "save" the company.

You are far too generous to the BOC. If Williams hadn't run the BOC to ground, right now we would be holding shares that would remain at par ($0.001/share) until our grandkids retired. You think the BOC sacrificed to save CLYW? Oh, yeah; that's why they tried to lose/destroy company financial records. That will always guarantee success. /S That's why they wrote a double secret probation vaporware agreement in which, we are now informed, Turrini gets 40 million shares beamed-in from the Star Trek Mirror Universe. That's why our "interim treasurer" performed to the standards of a second-grader at her lemonade stand on Elm Street. Look. It doesn't take an MBA to see this scam for what it has been. I am unable to understand how these criminals were able to acquire a property as valuable as the 923 patent. That aside, like so many other investors, I was sucked-into this company by an overly optimistic broker back in 2004 and continued to acquire shares, proving the triumph of hope over history. I hold shares in the high six figures. If this thing comes in, I can retire very comfortably. To be fair, CLYW is also the broker's largest position -- he believed, too. That's why they call it investing.

I am less concerned about the trial next March than what happens in January when the Bush tax rates expire, the military is destroyed through sequestration, Israel is forced to attack Iran, and the Middle East blows-up. These will determine what we investors will look like next year; the TM trial, not so much.

Disagree. The delisting of our stock was done purposefully by the BOC in their conspiracy to destroy the company and steal the patent for themselves and Daic. I, too, clench my teeth when I think of how the pps would be $2-3 now after the Markman. But it is what it is. This despite Turrini claiming to own 40M shares.

I thought you were referring to the dozen or so formerly unknown Calypso companies that have just been unearthed. I.E., some of the bums who have been running running CLYW scams since 2002 could be alerted that there will be money coming to CLYW and how might they grab some.

There's been a lot going on of which we were unaware.

Turrini loses case against Albosta

http://www.techagreements.com/agreement-preview.aspx?title=Calypso%20Wireless%20-%20Albosta%20Lawsuit%20Settlement%20Agreement%20And%20Release%20Agreement&num=543608

Albosta wins patent infringement case

http://www.techagreements.com/agreement-preview.aspx?title=Calypso%20Wireless%20-%20Albosta%20Lawsuit%20Settlement%20Agreement%20And%20Release%20Agreement&num=543608

Not really. A current CLYW balance sheet, income statement, and source and application of funds statement would have to show all assets and liabilities, including all valid ownership and any notes. Someone can't suddenly beam in from an alternate universe and claim company ownership or debt.

Sorry. The receiver has no charter to do any of this.

In which state is Turrini licensed to practice law? That bar needs to be notified of this bum's activities.

Good catch. Same scumbags, different name and state. Looks like a set-up to grab the company away from us shareholders but instead went "inactive."

Someone call Stacy Keach and tell him he's missing the story of a lifetime for "American Greed."

Refer back to the PR from Paraguay appointing Turrini to president of Paraguay Public Television. "He holds a 20% interest in Calypso Wireless and remains CEO despite having stopped being involved in day-to-day operations."

If so, would have to have been incorporated in a different state. One corporate name per state.

Good question. Turrini is claiming 40-45 million shares. That wonderful secret settlement of December, 2011.

An injunction against TM would be a good start. Followed by suit against current and past BOC members for financial loss and mismanagement.

This board is making me dizzy. Stock zooms to $6! Stock plummets to 2 cents! First, here comes the settlement! We're all gonna get well. Then, well, the BOC screwed it up. Again. No money. But wait! Another final settlement. Daic and the BOC get everything in a Double Secret Probation Vaporware settlement agreement, we get nothing. But wait! Receivership! We're saved! We are to get the "maximum value for our shares!" Have to affirm the patent. Markman! If the patent is affirmed, we will have to hire personal body guards to keep away the thousands of people trying to throw money at us for our shares! Then, the Markman, and... what? We kinda won, maybe. But not until more trials and time will we learn if our shares are worth anything. Now, hey! I'll part with my shares for X millions! Part with them to whom? The silence following the Markman hearing has been deafening.

Eight years. I have been up and down so many times that I have a sinus block. And hypoxia. And the bends. Six of my cats have died of old age. And the song continues.

Prior bad blood? How can you say such an awful thing! Just because the chairman of the Board has fled to Paraguay, claims to own 20% of the company stock, and says he is still running Calypso?

Yet, we remain unapproached by anyone regarding the patent they all need and/or are already using and that the Markman reaffirmed. I guess I need something more concrete to happen.

Understood. But the silence from industry and analysts regarding how well we did on Monday is a mystery. These were the same people who have for years been breathlessly awaiting this hearing. By my count we won four definitions, broke even on eight, and perhaps lost four. The court found that the patent covers cell and hotspot technology. That's a win.

Agree. Daic is only for Daic. That we may now profit from his seeking money from TM is just coincidence. His behavior in the CLYW saga has been appalling. The Board of Crooks fully intended to give him the patent and I am sure they had some secret deal going on with him to make it worth their while. Nothing else makes sense. You have a patent potentially worth billions and you fiddle-fart around with it for eight years while the stock craters? Fat chance.

Quote: Without knowing your past you cannot know your future, because your future will be the child of your past - Osho

"Everything meaningful that can be invented has been." -- US Patent Office, 1895

>>Do not underestimate the Markman hearing. This is going to be the alpha or omega.

Apparently not.

With the dust settling, it looks like we have won the majority of claims construction points. That being the case, when can we expect to see CLYW/Daic filing for an injunction on TM using our patent?

Thanks.

Crossposted:

"The 923 patent lists 6 "Hybrid Communication System" (HCS) in its Claims. They are summarized by difference as [numbers in parenthesis are the Claim Number in the patent]:

"1.(1) HCS for wireless data communication "at least 1 predetermined parameters comprising a pre-established vicinity range"
2.(6) HCS for data communication with plurality of devices dependent on the establishment of said predetermined parameters.
3.(11) HCS utilizing multi frequency wireless communication device and an Internet Access facility.
4.(16) HCS for wireless data communication said wireless communication device comprising a Pager Assembly.
5.(24) HCS for wireless data communication said transceiver including a scanning capability.
6.(27) HCS for wireless data communication said transceiver including selective configuration capability.

"If you look at the wording 1 and 4 are IDENTICAL except 4 adds "g)having a pager assembly". The court recognizes the difference between cell protocol and paging. Good for us."

Sounds more promising.

I read the attachment to the prelim order. It does not indicate whose argument the court supported, item by item. That's what's missing at this point. The text about pagers is also worrying.

I guess like most posters here I expected something more definitive a la "CLYW has an enforceable patent." Instead, the Markman seems to have given an order of definitions that the jury may or may not honor next year at trial. This seems to have kept us in the Sgt. Schultz Box: "I see nothing. I know nothing." What was this entire drill for if not to better define the righteousness of the patent? 3,000 hours in the last ten weeks by CLYW attorneys (at $400/hr/attorney)?

Perhaps in the next day or two some poster who knows what this means can tell us if our chances of ever seeing a dime for our stock have increased or decreased.

Do you still feel the same way as you did in July?

So we lost?

Beats me. No one here seems to know, either.

Giving not a clue about whether it is good for us or not. So, another six months of wondering WTH is going on.

What a let-down. We non-techies believed that a Markman "win" would change our prospects greatly for the better. You seem to be suggesting that... nothing has changed. The entire industry has been watching this hearing closely.

Please define "awesome." I have no clue what the findings were.

Provisional? So then nothing has been determined for the trial?

So did we win?

By your explanation, a Markman has no value going into a trial for infringement. Rather, per your suggestion, the jury can kinda sorta wanta give the plaintiff the benefit of the doubt ... if it feels like it.

I reject this explanation. From what I've read, Markmans make or break a patent. Otherwise, who would bother?

It certainly can in private trades.

Are you suggesting we could win on most or all of the definitions and still not have a decision on the patent's validity?

First things first. We have to win the Markman.

This has no bearing on the Markman verdict, unfortunately.