Well she recently signed on with Oberon, presented at the investment Bankers conference in New York. Made Hock responsible for funding and then raced over to see the engineers in Israel...... Tells me something big is in the pipeline.

Found this little presentation today. I wonder what use this is planned for.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/JD3Rnh7ZVR0

Valid question Matt, to my understanding it was the need to laminate at low temperatures was the issue. A security hurdle also had to be overcome.
Hang in there.

The move to Asia was explained by Chaya in recent releases. The manufacturing plants can produce the cards at a much faster pace allowing major contracts to be signed. They are targeting 50million cards in next 18 months.
The circuit boards will initially be made in Israel and sent to Asia to be laminated etc.
The manufacturing company has existing relationships with banks and card companies and will also be responsible for marketing to their far reaching client base.
It was interesting to read that smartmetric had to teach the engineers how to produce the cards at low temperatures to protect the circuit board before this arrangement was entered into.

The ducks nuts - SmartMetric has started marketing its card in Europe and will soon start sales and marketing in Asia and parts of Latin America. After the adoption of the new EMV chip cards has passed 50% of card users in the USA which is expected to be by mid 2015, the company will then direct it's marketing and sales effort into the United States said the SmartMetric President. Trials and purchasers of the SmartMetric card are expected soon after the company brings online it's mass card production which will be done in Asia.

The distraction of the court case is out of the way.
Funding confirmed by credible source.
Contracts to be announced soon it seems.
Share price - way under value.
Draw your own conclusions........

The case won't be won on a 15 min oral argument, the case is built on the pages and pages of filings. When you consider that, there was not any red hot, solid points made by the defendants I thought. Could go either way.....

Only a few hours to go... Let justice be served and provide us with the desired result.......

Yes I agree. I wonder if news of capital raising, production, contracts etc has been saved for after the court decision. There better be some good news in relation to the card soon....

24 hours out from Americas largest law suit worth 13.4 billion dollars and the share price is suppressed...... Yeah right... It's not manipulated lol.
Could all change tomorrow though........

Great minds...... I wonder how much discussion is going on behind close doors in regards to settlement or buy out.
Not many days left.....

Very frustrating that we are not seeing any movement leading into the court case. The good thing is that the share price has no bearing on the result of the case. The result of the case will have a huge bearing on the share price. So maybe, its the calm before the storm.
Here is a little reminder on how strong the case is.
http://ceo91.wix.com/smartmetric#!patent-litigation/c1pab

It is my understanding that verbal arguments are only for fifteen minutes each. I'm expecting an answer shortly after the 8th of August. This hearing is not expected to run for weeks.
All parties involved have already been briefed two weeks ago on proceedings.
An appeal would only result if an error in judgement is raised and accepted.
The appeals court can send it for trial jury for the compensation amount to be determined. A settlement would then be most likely.
This is closer than you think....

This time next week, I'll predict settlement talks begin. Only 9 business days until court time.....

Only 18 days until hearing date.......

To my understanding, all parties meet with the appeals court today to be briefed on processes of the trial beginning 8/8/14.
Getting close my friends and I wonder if settlement talks may even commence...... Time will tell.

Most certainly is.....

Very interesting comments from American Express
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/smartmetric-patent-infringement-defendants-visa-123556674.html

In my mind, there is no doubt that the share price has been manipulated lower. Some have questioned my views but no person in there right mind would be selling shares in a company 1 month out when a 13 billion dollar plus court case is about to be resolved in the appeals court. Especially, when the validity of the patent has been proven and the debate lies on who should be sued.
The defendants own experts have agreed they control the power of production.
In normal market trading conditions this stock would $2.50 plus.
I haven't considered the expectations of mass production of the biometric card and future contracts in that share price.

This might help you Glen. It shows that SMME were presenting at 2.40 http://nibanet.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/8_AGENDA-NIBA-2014-NY.pdf

Surely this thing is about to pop...... Get your ticket.

Judgement day is upon us! 8/8/14 bring it on.....

The darkest hour is just before the dawn

Read this article. Imagine if we get the card manufactured.
http://www.sfgate.com/business/press-releases/article/Japan-Biometrics-Market-to-Grow-at-a-34-6-CAGR-5569509.php

Found this page http://smartmetricmall.com/
Seems like online protection for shopping online via a central hub.Very interesting.

Anyone have information on how the presentation went?
Could be a game changer if it went well.

Meanwhile SMME get a mention in this report.
http://www.totalpayments.org/2014/06/04/biometrics-primed-future-payments/?pk_campaign=Event&pk_kwd=Related#sthash.lhV1p27f.dpbs

If the price wasn't negatively manipulated than what was LNM doing?

i agree that option holders could be responsible for part of the short selling amount but I believe there is still a large naked short position out there.
You may have forgotton, we did spike to 0.88 a few years ago and another recent rally to around 50c. it spent some time around the 40c level where i believe the short sellers re-established. This reduces your overall amount. Remember the negative spruiker who is facing a lawsuit himself who was very active the time?

Lastly, with a 13.4 billion dollar law suite against two major global companies, the dollar amount is insignificant if they can make the company fail. The low price has made it very difficult for SMME to obtain funding.

The information in regards to the level of short positions in the market was provided by a broker. I can't post anything yet but will endevour to do so.
Those people holding such amajor short positions will be very nervous as we lead into the court hearing and manufacturing announcements.
I have also been asked what is a short position. It's a position taken where a trader will sell borrowed stock hopeing to buy it back at a lower price. if the share prices rises they buy back at a loss.
once this stock turns higher the scramble for shares covering these positions will be fun to watch for those that are long that is.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/tapandgo-credit-card-fraud-chewing-up-police-resources-20140528-393ny.html
SMME have the solution......

Again, I would like to remind people there are 40 million shares that has been sold trading on the short side. That is a massive attempt to make this company fail and a position that will need to be unwound resulting in 40 million shares being purchased. Look at the daily average traded to determine how large that is and where the price will be driven to.
Bring on some positive news.

There is currently 40 million shares that has been short sold on market for SMME. That is way overdone and very scary position to have. Especially, leading into major announcements over the next few weeks such as the hearing date and the commencement of mass production.
Don't be concerned my friends. The scramble to cover these short positions will be fun to watch lol.

Better price action on Friday night. Increased volume, finished strongly and was paid as high as 19c.
Expecting court date soon.

I take your point, SMME need to improve their communications and website but the wocket product does not seem to compare to SMME card.
It's sold at $150.00 to consumers and not issued by a bank/corporation. Seems costly to me.
Once you upload data onto the wallet you lose any bank protection with fraud etc. Simliar to the smart phone arguement.

Hopefully, we are not too far away from production announcements.

Nice post billy, we may well see a lot more activity in this sector which SMME could well benefit by.

Check this out!
I have a copy of our rebuttal. I cannot post the whole document but read this extract and then tell me when don't have a strong case!

II. SECOND ERROR IN DefsBR - ARGUING DEFENDANTS DO NOT CONTROL DEFENDANTS' EMVSYSTEMS, BASED ON DEFENDANTS' ERRORS OF: (1) IGNORING THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANTS' OWN DECLARANTS MERSCHEN AND AABYE; AND (2) FAILING TO ADDRESS/REFUTE THE CASE LAW ON "CONTROL" (BRIEFED AT SMARTMETRICOB pp34-36) DefsBR(pp3,49-52) errs in arguing that Defendants do not control Defendants' own EMVsystems. So arguing is (1) contrary to the admissions of Defendants' experts/Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses Merschen and Aabye, and is (2) contrary to the controlling case law. Both the evidence, and case law, are cited in SmartmetricOB (pp. 10-15,34-36). DefsBR does not refute either that evidence, or the controlling case law. Defendants forfeit credibility in arguing they do not control Defendants' EMVsystems, when "EMV system" is Defendants' acronym for "Europay Mastercard Visa smartcard processing system."(A03451, paragraph 2, Gussin Decl, which attests Defendants' own documents say "EMV system" refers to "Europay Mastercard Visa smartcard processing system"). SmartmetricOB(ppl3-15) quoted the portion of Merschen's Rule 30(b)(6) deposition testimony(A02674-A02677)l, where Merschen admitted defendant MasterCard sets the standards for all parts of MasterCard's EMVsystems, and admitted that an EMV card can only carry the "MasterCard" logo, if that card complies with all MasterCard's standards: "Q: Let's go back to your report, Exhibit 100, Doctor, page 6. A:Yes. Go on. Q: There's a paragraph that begins at the bottom of page 6 and continuestothetopofpage7. ThisparagraphdescribeswhatMasterCard'sroleisinthe EMV system; correct? A: Correct Q: It accurately describes MasterCard's role in the EMVs, does it not? A: Table does. Q: Itsays,amongotherthings,thatMasterCarddefinesprocedures Smartmetric had filed that same Merschen testimony in Smartmetric's Opposition(A2533-A02850) to Defendants' MSJ on non-infringement
message content and flow for authorization clearly [sic: clearing] and settlement of payment card transactions; right? A: Yes. Q: It says that Mastercard sets standards for certain physical and technical aspects o f cards, do you see that? A: Yes. Q: The cards we're talking about are EMV cards; right? A: That is correct. Q: MasterCard also sets standards for certain technical, meaning card readers; right? A: That is correct. Q: And the reason MasterCard sets these standards, you state, is to ensure global interoperability; right? A: That is correct. Q: So that any acquirer who deviates from these standards will not be practicing the MasterCard EMV system as you describe it here; correct? [emphasis added, objections omitted] THE WITNESS: The cardholder, the issuer, the merchant, the acquirer need to comply with these standards. Q: So if I have an EMV card and it says MasterCard on it, I can assumethat that card has been—conforms to the standards you've set forth here on pages six and seven o f Exhibit 100; right? [emphasis added, objection omitted] THE WITNESS: This card will have been issued by a MasterCard issuer. And as issuer, as a contractual part [sic:party] to MasterCard, will have had to make sure that the card you have been issued complies with MasterCard's requirements, yes. Q: And only i f cards so issued meet the standards you talk about here on pages six and seven, can the issuer put the MasterCard logo on the card; right? A: That is correct. Q: So if the logo is on the card, that means that the card conforms to the standards you've set forth here on pages six and seven; right. emphasis added, objection omitted] Q. Go ahead? A. If the issuer has complied with the rules, yes. Q. Now, on page 7, the first full paragraph you have there talks about things MasterCard doesn't do like they don't make cards or issue payment cards; right? A. Right. Q. When you say they don't make them, you mean they don't manufacture the actual card; right?
A. They don't manufacture, they don't sell, they don't distribute.
Q. But they do say what has to be on the card to conform to MasterCard's standards; correct? A. They issued specifications that these cards have to comply with, yes."

I checked today the timetable of the court case.
SMME have two weeks to lodge their rebuttal and then the hearing date is given. Expecting May/June date.

V n MC's defence seems to have changed from disputing the breach of patent to claiming they do not control the manufacturing of the EMV cards and therefore, SMME are suing the wrong people. This despite their own experts previously stating that they do in fact have that control.

Very interesting turn in the case. I like how the viability of the patent is no longer being challenged.

SMME should certainly pop higher on this news. Defence is weak. Mc & visa have actively been pushing for this technology to be widely accepted throughout the states.
I'm sitting far more comfortable now.....

Totally agree Pottsville. Are they actually agreeing that a breach of the patent has occurred but they are not responsible as they do not physically produce cards? Wow, I read transcripts where the m/card witness stated they are responsible for the technology and instruct the manufacturing of the cards.
This is an extraordinary defence.
Can't wait for this to conclude..... Very happy now!