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.
Never - does that mean EDIG is inside my Gilette Sensor Razor. I bet that's worth millions to us. I never thought about it.
LL
I think we all know. And I'm sure that a complete search of all the times 774 has been listed in prior art by various law firms would number in the thousands.
LL
Never, I think the beanie analogy would be of greater value to shareholders than the 774 listing.
But this is in keeping with traditional edig thinking. If someone mentions a product, hires a lawyer, or cites a patent it validates both the company and the scads of money people have spent on stock.
LLK
Their awareness of it has resulted in the stock being at .03.
LL
Because a good lawyer lists all prior art to cover all conceivable bases. They don't make independent decisions on whether they are good or bad, they just make sure they list them all.
LL
I'm not sure I understand your post. This is prior art I assume. They are just citing it, not saying it is valid or anything else. Good prior art searches list everything out there.
What is your implication?
LL
I'm in around .50 or so. If I could get out at .10 I would also consider it great.
LL
Oh yeah, that's right. Well, we'll see what others think when DM files round three for hundreds of millions of dollars against the remaining 100 or so remaining defendants.
LL
Yeah - I still think the majority of the shareholders don't get the No Ram issue - or they think that the re-exam has magically cured it.
LL
Well, that's a tall order. To disprove your statement I'd have to make an inventory off all compnies in the world which hold patents and their success or lack thereof. Seems much easier for you to merely find one company that has predicated its success upon one patent, since you brought it up and all.
LL
To borrow a phrase, re 2. I'm just reponding to the statements you brought up. I'm certainly interested in any information you can produce.
LL
Two thoughts:
1. Those companies clearly were not named EDIG as the courts and settlements have already spoken to the value of their patents. $0.00 as of the last litigation and markman ruling.
2. I'd be interested in knowing the name of a company which had one patent and created shareholder value for those who owned its stock. Let us know.
LL
They are completely shameless in repetitive meaningless patent and trademark filings, as well as their nebulous, unverifible "expectations."
They'll keep going as long as the money holds out. Can you see Apple, Samsung, Google, etc., announcing stuff and doing nothing for years afterwards?
BTW, I know guys with 10-20 patents who have never been able to make a dime from them. Having a patent or a trademark is worthless in and of itself.
LL
That was Sunpoop. He and I had a spirited debate on Agora about it. I was pointing out their growth, their number of employees, their revenues, and he was pointing out that RP told him they were a crappy company we didn't need to worry about.
Well, I guess he was right. We don't need to worry about them anymore - they took all our business. (Except that which we gave away to the trains on purpose.)
LL
NONEchi - oh, that's a good one.
Just more evidence of EDIG's true business plan. Do just enough to keep shareholders on the hook while providing stick options and salaries (oh and "reasonable reimbursements") for themselves.
LL
Never, it's much easier for some to debate barely relevant matters such as familial relationships, "reasonable remimbursements", who is getting a salary, etc., rather than more fundamental and meaningful questions such as what is the business plan and how do the plan to generate enough revenue (or any for that matter) to give the shareholders any sort of return. You will note that such topics are completely absent from any of these "debates."
LL
That is a really great question. Why don't you email fred or allen and let us know? Thanks in advance.
LL
"The only thing that could stimulate interest would be a whole new regime of management and directors that would bring some a new vision and plan of action for the future. "
Since the aforementioned have demonstrated their complete lack of concern for shareholders we know that will never happen. They will ride their gravy train to the bitter end and never look back.
LL
Brad - well done. I know you are a reporter, not a lawyer, but your legal assessments over the years have put most of us lawyers to shame. I would say your EDIG facts and analyses are well over 90 % in accuracy.
This is a nice, concise, and, in my thinking, correct summation of how the round 2 litigation ended (DM threw in the towel) and of how the patent has now been "strengthened." I say weakened and limited in scope IMO.
LL
Never - I'll give him the benefit of the doubt; it's a wildly unique area of the law. Most successful practitioners have engineering degrees as well as law degrees.
However, to your point, NO ONE hass been able to articulate a strategy for EDIG's success as a going concern. They "believe," they think the current markman is "wrong," they are happy the lights are still on, they say we are going to file round 3 when round 1 was not successful and round 2 was a disaster, and they cannot even speculate on how to get around the markman hearing DM lost for us. (BTW, they lost the Markman case as well).
There are a lot of questions directed at those of us who attempt to openly assess EDIG's options, but no one will answer the question of how EDIG is going to create success for the shareholders.
LL
OK, I get it now. Sorry for my snide comments.
This is an entirely new and weird area of the law from regular crim/civ appellate work. The markman hearings and their appeal process is a world unto itself. Sorry again.
I agree that what we think is irrelevant, however, this markman is law.
LL
I always thought it was the job of the company to get the word out. It's called marketing.
LL
I thought you did a lot of appellate work in this area. This markman stands, period. If DM takes on cases based on the "revised" patent then there wwill be an opportunity for a new markman based on it. The old marman will still be precedent. My opinion is that the old markman was well-reasoned and thorough and poses real problems for the "revised" patent which, to me, appears to be weaker, not stronger.
I don't know if you read the "transcript" of the hearings posted by SS, but DM did the best job they could with what they had, the worst of which was a terrible witness. In that area they dropped the ball badly in witness preparation. The judge laid the groundwork for the markman carefully in discussions with both parties and then covered exactly what she said she would.
Another failure by DM was moving to the CO venue where they had the chance of getting this judge who is a defendant's judge. She did what she has done many times - laid down the law in favor of the defendant, posing a real barrier for future EDIG litigation.
LL
The opinion is neither a success or a failure. It is the law and not appealable.
If you were the judge perhaps you would have written it differently. You are not.
LL
Time does bring all things to light. The last 12 years has brought to light EDIG's singular failure to come through on any of their promises to shareholders.
I didn't say your copying was incorrect, just your conclusion. And I agree time will tell that as well; it would be remarkable if momentum were reversed.
LL
Yes, I agree with you; just as obvious as the fact that EDIG's strategy is to sell stock, not products.
LL
And in the case of EDIG, you can't prove a positive. Appropriate to compare it to seeling drinks at a bar.
BTW, three different deals, three different offerings. 1. RFP for wireless EVU. I even have special collateral created for it. For complete portable wireless use throughout hospital I order from menu, library, movies, dtreaming TV, email, etc. 2. More traditional non-wireless use in maor cardiac unit. 3. As monitor for patients receiving artificial disc surgery to sirelessly monitor pressure, etc. From transmitter in disc plus traditional entertainment.
Next step was for hospitals to use for pre- and post- hospital check in and monitoring.
I have a little trouble with the concept of willy nilly "turning down business" in the area in which they are announcing volume business with these as the trials particularly when they NEVER HAD any other healthcare opportunities or sales. Just doesn't fell, well. . . Honest.
LL
I'll say this - if LGJ is correct, then DM are the worst attorneys on the planet, or EDIG's patent is worthless for some other reason.
LL
I agree with this question. If I invest in something today I want to know everything about how they are going to make money, how much it is, what is the margin going to be, etc., not just that some guy named Fred said they are going to sue some people with a law firm that is "handling" their litigation.
LL
How about when you do an RFQ and WIN it and then turn down the business?
LL
.03 is the result whether it is an articulated strategy or a non-stratgy.
LL
I have to say that I am shocked at your comment that you are adding shares daily with absolutely NO evidence of any revenue generating activity now or in the future. My jaw is, figuratively, on the ground.
LL
Coyote,
I was hoping you could point me in the right direction as to why you stay invested in this stock since you stated you really are unsure about how they are going to generate revenues going forward. I look forward to your answer.
As to their stating they had turned down business as a strategy - I don't think I said they stated that, nor do I recall their stating that. However, I have personally witnessed it and can provide names for you - Denver ________ Hospital, Northwestern ________ Hospital, ________ Disc and others if I put my mind to it. I am not the only witness by the way.
The company has also stated the following though I can't recall precise dates and times - maybe brad can help. They have said they had more business than they could handle, another time they said they were selecting only home run potential , and a myriad of other similar statements have been made. Perhaps others can help with this as I can't possibly recall all the misleading commentary from the company.
Clearly, at least in my mind, the reality is that they were turning down business and it was their plan to only select home run opportunities. Clearly there are three instances of customers trying to buy large quantities of product and/or demoing us at a large trade show. Clearly there are many other instances which I can't recall or of which I am not aware. Now of course, just as with pro and con on television there will be another side to this which I am sure you can provide.
Or perhaps I should just ask you to please provide proof that they were NOT turning down business and that this was NOT a strategy. I look forward to your response.
LL
No offense, but to use some of your own approaches, if you have questions about that why don't you contact the comoany and let us know what you find out? Thanks in advance.
LL
Most are still not aware of the 1996 Norris action and no recod can be found of the resolution. Fred and RP refuse to answer any questions about it as does EDIG's the attorney of record who I and others have personally contacted.
LL
Their strategy of turning down business has lowered the PPS to .03. Great strategy.
Re actionability - if anyone volunteers to fund it I have lawyer prepped and ready to go. Let me know.
LL
Kool, I never got beyond the 5th cicuit and all the TX appellate courts but I clerked for a federal judge and have had my share of experience in the area. I really disagree with your assessment and if you read ss's notes and kept up with all the pre-markman hearings the judge had a lot to manage.
I might not have used the same language she did but I think she (and her clerks) got it right. She is clearly not a plaintiff's judge if you read her history but that does not make her wrong.
We'll see what happens going forward but a lot will have to change for that ruling to be contravened in my opinion.
LL
Nrad, realy great summary of eDIG and its future prospects. (If the Ran don't fit ... Ouch.) Robt loest indeed pulled back the veil on their shell game.
You are one of the few people that understands that the markman was thorough and complete and hoisted Woody on his own petard and how EDIG has tried to reaarange language in the patent so as to skate by next time. Ain't gonna happen. The standing marman is going to be res judicata to a new one so no new result. That's why I think DM will not file again.
Woody could have indeed avoided much of this but he had poor legal advice both originally and at trial.
LL
Never, foor those not "in the know" that is EDIG's business plan and has been for some time.
LL
EDIG's strength is words. Not patents, not products, but words. I don't believe the patents are any stronger, just different words. The markman (bad) is just as strong as if the case had gone to full trial and judgment rendered at that time. It has full force and effect just as any other markman.
With EDiG, the lights are indeed on, but there is no one home.
LL