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.
>>T-mobile infringing on CLYW's patent didn't cost us any money.
STRONGLY disagree. Cost us owners many millions in share price plus lost licensing deals. Costs of not doing business. Opportunity costs. Likely patent and business suppression. Possible criminal activities. I have no idea what discovery will reveal in the TM case and frankly TM must have wet its pants several times over the past months and years. I am certain they do NOT want a jury to get a load of what a trial will reveal. If they weren't so cash rich -- plus having a rich European uncle -- I believe we would have seen a lot more progress in this case by now. Plus, the Board of Crooks probably isn't sleeping well these days.
This is not a man who draws straight lines.
http://www.corporationwiki.com/Texas/Houston/drago-daic-P3049936.aspx
I think I understand your optimism and would like to share it. But a big win at the Markman does what in the short term? TM has the time and money to drag this out for several more years if they are willing to get really ballsey and shrug-off the disastrous possibility of jury-awarded triple damages.
I would also suggest than when anyone is calculating a local apparent noon (LAN), that you remember to arc to Arcturus.
How can the deadline for mediation be a month after the hearing?
Thank you.
Short version.
Shareholders have to be notified of a settlement and may complain if they don't like it. That's it. It is still solely up to the receiver and the judge.
What a shame the stock is delisted. A fast, favorable Markman would have jumped it into the $$ range.
Re. contingency lawyers: they are basically worthless. I have in my desk a check for $1.92 that I keep as a reminder. It was my share of a huge award for damages in which I was one of the class involved. The lawyers got a huge amount. We plaintiffs, not so much.
Important issue. Can the Receiver accept a settlement with which the shareholders strongly disagree?
Re. Daic's new .1% of the patent:
That does not compute against his 28% ownership per one of the last agreements with the Board of Crooks. He is even assigned a prior partial ownership of the patent.
>>Didn't tmobile successfully field test the ASNAP technology? Hmmm.
I don't have a pointer to the documentation, but yes. TM ran a test of 923 with CLYW and signed some sort of agreement in principle that they would use our technology. They even created advertising to that effect. I am sure our lawyers will be using their Wayback Machine at the hearing.
>>Markman ruling target date 26 Oct.
According to previous posts, way long. More like several days.
IOW, it was done with the approval of the Receiver.
"THIS PATENT ASSIGNMENT ("Assignment") is by and between Assignor,
Calypso Wireless, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Assignees, Drago Daic and Jimmy Williamson, P.C. This Assignment is effective as of December 6,2011."
December, 2011. How convenient. I would welcome the Receiver telling Daic he has no further claim on CLYW.
You lost me at "then the phone actually blows up." Something is blowing here but it ain't technology.
Have a nice day.
>>He said $100 million would be outside the range someone would pay for it because it is so broad it could be more easily challenged,<<
Bullshit alert. A patent, by definition, is not broad. It is technically specific and has to show being unique. The Wrights tried to patent the airplane for 20 years and lost every round. They were able to patent their specific airplane, but as we know, an airplane can be built in many ways (i.e. ailerons vs. wing warping, rudder aft instead of rudder forward, etc.) They spent all their effort trying to patent the airplane and so little effort trying to refine it that they became also-rans and never produced a single commercially successful airplane after 1908. The CLYW patent is technically unique. Unless someone comes up with another one that is unique and does the same job, our patent is all there is for seamless switching. The likely criminal activities of the BOC and certain investors are what has kept money from us owners. Of course, an outside source is going to claim the patent is uninforcable.
Yes, a success at the Markman hearing is key to future success. But by itself means little. What will then become key is the ability to profit from it in our lifetimes. I don't understand how someone can say 'a successful Markman means the pps will be $2 - $3.' By what reckoning? That assumes that suddenly the patent will have an instant market value of $400M - $600M. How so? Based upon what calculations? I, too, remain optimistic but don't understand such forecasts. Ford fought the inventor of the intermittent windshield wiper for 20 years until they awarded him what he had spent in legal costs. I'd like to think Daic will suddenly become our white knight and drag us all across the financial finish line. But his past behavior says otherwise. The Receiver has been a tower of nothing as far as anyone can determine.
The short version is that we know little more about what and when we are likely to receive than we did a year ago. Yes, the odds are far better than they were in 2011. I've been long on and have been adding shares of this stock since 2004 and am in, period. But the simple truth is that nearing the Markman in no way suggests that our saga will soon be over. The biggest factor will be in the internal machinations of the past and future infringers.
It's all speculation, isn't it? I've been through SERE School and in some ways this has been worse.
I personally communicated, by registered mail, with a major comm company that needed to buy our patent in order to continue in the industry. No response. My impression is that until now infringers have felt that it's cheaper to continue to steal our technology and perhaps pay down the road than to simply license or buy it now. Winning the Markman would be great but that would only give us standing to pursue TM and other infringers. IN TM's case, the chance of being hit with treble damages because of the paper trail of their theft is more likely to result in some sort of settlement in the near future.
"T-Mobile Case Filings: Joint Motion for Extension CCBs (8/9)"
This is interesting. If Daic/CLYW are dead to rights regarding the validity of the patent, why are they requesting additional time?
I suspect that some of the data Daic and the BOC supplied in past actions to suppress the patent may now be coming back to bite him/us.
Once again the question has to be asked. Apple is now going to use what appears to be our patent without paying royalties or buying it outright. Again, I can see only two interpretations: our patent is going to continue to be suppressed and we will get zero returns, or the receiver is an incompetent boob friend of the judge who will run this out for as long as he can bleed money into his bank account and then leave us with nothing. With all the big players now overtly marketing seamless switching I am at a loss to understand how nothing is happening for us.
Translation, please. Is Apple using our patent or have they developed their own technology, making ours an also-ran?
Perhaps this answers my question:
"The quality of Markman decisions in district courts can be improved by allowing interlocutory appeal of Markman decisions. District court patent claim interpretations frequently are overturned by the Federal Circuit. For instance, in the period from 1996 to 2003, 35% of district court claim interpretations were overturned by the Federal Circuit. The inconsistent claim interpretations between the district court and the Federal Circuit are representative of how the current system has a deleterious impact on the patent system and how the current procedures create uncertainty and imbalance between the parties."
Two out of three isn't bad, but I don't know what level court will be holding our Markman Hearing.
I agree. Perhaps an attorney on this board can tell us if one can appeal the result of a Markman Hearing, and if so, do damages continue to accrue during such an appeal.
It's really a numbers game. With a potential $400M due in past royalties -- $1.2B if treble damages -- TM has every reason to spend a fortune defending against/appealing the result of the suit.
Ask the Board of Crooks. I'm sure it is easily divisible by some private deal they were hiding.
I remember the order to keep the judge up to date. I don't remember any instruction to keep the owners up to date unless within 10 days of taking some action. Nonetheless, the silence is very disappointing. This receiver may create a bad rep for himself.
The "patent suppression conspiracy theory" is not a laugh. It's what happened, IMO. Also, IMO, it was a scheme between the BOC and Daic.
Two questions.
Why do you believe TM is unaware of the predicament in which they find themselves? They've knowingly -- and admittedly -- been stealing from us since 2004, as have the other infringers.
Second, I don't understand why we shareholders won't get the $$ for the patent when CLYW is rolled-up. You talk about it being its own separate entity going to auction but somehow not benefiting shareholders. How would that work? Aren't TM and the patent separate issues in that TM is about their unlawful use of our property while the patent is the asset we own?
The receiver is under the judge's order "to maximize the return for us shareholders." Two cents? Hardly, when the patent is worth tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. As I said, the receiver would then be known as the lawyer who screwed-up selling the patent. Not a good career move.
In your scenario, the receiver gives himself the reputation as the lawyer who screwed us out of hundreds of millions of dollars. That would pretty much destroy his career.
You are wrong.
I find this very encouraging. I can think of three reasons for a lawyer to withdraw from a big case like this:
1. He/she believes he cannot win.
2. He has discovered wrong-doing by his clients that they did not disclose to him.
3. He resigns from the firm representing the clients for personal or professional reasons.
I do not believe the court will allow this to delay proceedings.
I again have to try and peer into the minds of the Board of Crooks. They had hundreds of millions -- if not billions -- of dollars in revenue just waiting to wash-over CLYW and make us all very rich. So what did they do? They suppressed the patent and tried to put the company out of business. There are only several possible explanations:
1. The BOC and officers are idiots.
2. The BOC had secret deals with monied interested parties to make themselves rich while stealing the company from its shareholders.
3. The officers had an on-going program of patent suppression to be paid for by the big cell companies and government regulators until the patent expires in 2021.
4. The government itself has suppressed the patent and company for its own reasons. The courts have been complicit.
I can't decide which is most likely, frankly. With scams like Boston DTox/Detox International robbing investors and then, when brought to the SEC, the government telling you to get lost, it's hard to be optimistic about government interaction with business.
The receivership judge has ruled that CLYW has always been a scam. It is too bad it took that long for that determination to be made. On the one hand, we own an extremely valuable piece of technology that is owed billions of dollars in back licensing, plus more billions in future licensing. Perhaps my biggest frustration is that with all this as fact, no one has been able to make any money for shareholders, so far. The most likely answer: patent suppression continues and the receiver is allegedly a buddy of the judge who appointed him to clean up the mess. On the other hand, anyone who can shake this loose will never have to work again. Their kids will never have to work. Their grandkids will never have to work. Isn't that incentive enough?
Who gets to agree to a settlement amount? The receiver or Daic? That's mighty important.
Yes, the infamous stay about which the Board of Crooks reported to us with straight faces that an agreeable settlement was less than 90 days away. We know how that worked out.
In such an scenario the receiver would be negligent, IMO. Any pre-Markman settlement would by its nature be a fraction of what the patent will be worth after the Markman.
Anyone know who the Markman judge is, and what is his record in such matters?
Research Daic on Google. Look at his spider web of interlocking fronts and shell companies (before it's wiped). Just try to find out exactly what he does or what company titles he holds. His organization chart makes that of the Corleones look like a straight line. Research the number of times he's been sued, and for what. It's all public information, or at least what can be found in print. One of the richest ironies about such people is that they will cut-off a leg because they have toenail fungus.