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.
OK, I have to do another Coyote.
Do you have proof that RP did not run the show? Thanks in advance.
And I thought that horse had been beaten sufficiently yesterday. There is no "proof" one way or the other, but if you add up all the "facts" RP played the major role in 90%+ of all edig-related events, communications, emails, phone calls, etc.
LL
Brad - remember the "partners" page? Every major tech company in America was an EDIG "partner."
This is indeed a Laughing Stock.
LL
Well said, Brad has been consistently deeper and more accurately into the EDIG IP and litigation maze than almost any other poster - in fact, far beyond any of the non-lawyer posters (along with Cassandra). It's not that complicated, just requires a lot of concentration.
I will personally be shocked if we see any more litigation from DM, but if we do, they will still be in a position of conflict vis a vis the shareholders and they make money, the company makes money, and the shareholders suffer.
As for Nunchi, they shoot horses don't they? Let's do the humane thing for Nunchi and the shareholders.
LL
Did you say Laughing (space) Stock? That's very good.
LL
Maybe I'm just a neigh-sayer.
LL
Ha ha - ok, everyone but you. That's fair.
If you had been standing there talking to Blakeley when he delivered the news and watched him sag in disappointment, realizing that he was definitey not going to achieve his sales goals and that the company had lied about its activities to the shareholders, you might have a more defined opinion. Or maybe you're right - maybe he was just faking it and HE decided that he didn't want to be successful. That's it, RP was just a pawn in Blakeley's grand scheme.
LL
But, but . . . the elements are still coming, right? I mean, I've put a lot of money into this company based on what Putnam has said! Note, not what Atul, or Blakeley or Collins or Fred said, but Putnam.
I mean, he wouldn't say something like that if it were misleading and just run off or something would he?
LL
I agree 100%. Otherwise we would have to rely on the misleading statements of management for our information. You know, "elements" that are coming into play to attract institutional investors (oh, that was last year, right?), "expectations" regarding significant events which will happen "soon", and all that stuff.
LL
Never,
That's about the 30th email or report I've seen over the years on how busy things are at EDIG. I think it means they are very busy trying to figure out how to look like they are doing anything.
LL
Proof? Why do you need proof?
Everyone knows RP was running the company. ALL the shareholders called RP for info. ALL the visitors for the last 12 years have gone to visit RP. ALL the information about the things EDIG "expected" to happen "soon" came from RP. It's silly to say that he was NOT running the company.
And when the president or CTO or whatever Blakeley was, along with Falk, do an RFP and a daylong test at a major Denver hospital and we are chosen as a finalist who made the call that we would not spend the time and money to go forward on a 400 bed sale to one of the most modern and well-thought of hospitals in America? Putnam. Blakeley was overruled.
In companies where I have worked the guy who makes the ultimate decision is the guy in charge. It was then, and ALWAYS was, RP.
And this is a misdirectional debate. Let's focus on the unimportant stuff by all means. Let's debate whether the umpire REALLY got a good look at the 3d pitch to the batter at the plate before making the call with two outs in a game with our team behind 32-0. What's more important, that call, or the fact that our team is getting killed?
LL
Brad - good points. And I find it interesting that people want to contest issues and debate about the unimportant matters as opposed to the important ones. Who cares about whether a person is a full or part-time SVP or CEO of a 7 person company? It's a ludicrous exercise. Who cares if one can prove that Woody calls the shots or not? If you stand back and look at who has profited from all this mess and who has been hurt by it, the answers are obvious.
It's like having a debate and not being able to prove whether your team's catcher called for a pitchout or whether the pitcher misread the signals in the top of the ninth inning when the important thing is your team was behind 17-0 at that point.
LL
Mark,
"It was more about what he didn't say than what he did." LOL. One of my favorite shareholder quotes. We could go on and on about the Woody business model - we know who wins and who loses and we know RP, Fred, and Woody see us only as means to an end. Their end.
LL
Actually Blakeley knew why he was doing and got EDIG into the final two choices for a major hospital win in Denver - 400 beds for the wireless EVU - did a daylong demo with the prototype device connecting to their LAN, their library, their online dining menu, email, etc., and we beat out MSFT to get into the final two. I was there so I know this is a fact. We did an RFP which I still have.
That was when RP declined to put up the performance bond, taking us out of the deal, giving the competition the win, and "flabbergasting" Blakeley, who soon left. He actually asked me if I thought they should issue an amended PR regarding their statements about successful trials and volume hospital sales. I figured that would hurt the shareholders so told him that was their decision. He left soon afterwards but checked out mentally at that point.
Atul was definitely not a salesperson but a nice guy - we met with him several times in SD.
RP ran the show, probably under Woody's purview, and the goal was spend as little as possible while pretending to be bigger and more successful than they were and position the insiders and those who had "loaned money" for shares to make as much as possible.
Blakeley was just another one who got screwed.
LL
I'm cracking up. Good one.
Not worth $275k, but good.
LL
None of Woody's company's were ever designed to make money for anyone except Woody and the gang. None of them were ever even designed to be companies. I've worked for a $35B company, a $5B company, smaller companies and now have a piece of a startup. ALL of them had viable infrastructures and organizational plans. My current company has about 80 people and we've already had an acquisition offer.
None of Woody's companies fit this model. They weren't meant to grow, to be sold, to acquire other assets. They are just mannequins upon which public shares of stock are draped like the emperor's new clothes.
EDIG got lucky with some pizzazy technology and a couple of people mentioning it publicly, as well as some big name corporate associations (TI, Intel, etc.). And that happened at the height of the bubble - the biggest deception ever, and the one I was too stupid to act on, was their fanning the flames of hope with the dishonest, false PR about filing for Nasdaq because they "believed" they were eligible.
When they had multiple chances to sell their best device, the EVU, RP declined to do so because they didn't want to put up a performance bond and spend the money to produce and support them. But they could atill use that opportunity, like Nasdaq, to issue PRs about successful trials and volume sales to hospitals.
If you added up all the incorrect and dishonest statements they have issued it would be mind-numbing. Re Coyote's advice - I have actually had my attorney looking into what it would cost to bring a shareholder suit, what statutes of limitations apply, and what liabilities obtain. Not looking for money, just an apology or a reckoning. But it will probably cost too much - on top of the $275k or so invested and the $35k or so that Parker and I put into bringing them customers.
LL
Well, we may not have practiced patent law but some of us did practice law and one of us worked for the largest supplier of IP tools and information in the world. And I agree that our opinion doesn't matter but the Court's does, and the Court has spoken.
I can also count and know how much time is left to sue on these patents.
I can also read and know that even the ever-deceptive and slippery EDIG says they can now only go after FUTURE "infringers" on 774, clearly the strongest card they had in their deck.
I can also count and know that even when 774 was deemed to be whole and in its original form EDIG an DM never thought it was worth more than a million or so dollars even to the biggest alleged infringers.
I also can run a business and am in law firms every day and I can't see the value proposition for DM continuing in the same contingent fee model. I would be surprised if they think it is going to be worth their time to file any more infringement suits since every defendant now has a road map of how to respond. Note we didn't get settlements even from all defendants in round two.
Finally, I have common sense and the verbal contortions employed by Woody to keep his patent alive have doomed the PPS potential for the shareholders. I'll be shocked if it ever hits .10 again.
LL
I think Kool has not been around for long. This is a debate that has been held a number of times before. The shareholders cannot amass enough votes to impact BOD membership in any way. There is no way for an investor to have an impact.
And you are correct- they already know everything you want to tell them. An ever growing (formerly minority now ) majority of shareholder have similar feelings. When jtdiii tried to reel off a list of compiled questions at a SHM (can't say annual SHM) he was cut off part way into it. We are but a necessary nuisance to them. If one could do what they do and sleep at night it would be a really great job.
LL
I'll do a Coyote.
I agree completely. What action are you taking instead of merely posting thoughts on a message board?
LL
Kool, give it up. You won't get any information out of them and that which you get will be misleading, incomplete or inaccurate. On occasion it has been downright untruthful. But they get away with it, they have our money, and we're not getting it back.
LL
No weaker a response than the pablum spoon fed to the investors by EDIG.
LL
Well said Dischino -
They are definitely "two pees in a pod." Couldn't have put it better.
Unlike you, I don't accept it - but I realize I am powerless over it without bringing a shareholder action, the the ROI on that is non-existent.
LL
Coyote - you are a hoot. I like your style.
I'm not going to sue them - there would be no satisfaction either monetary or emotional. But I know someone who is indeed laying the groundwork.
Take care.
LL
Never, why don't you email Fred with your questions? I'm sure he will quickly get back to you with some hard facts.
LL
Not sure which sentence you mean. If first paragraph that was sardonic and rhetorical. Email Cook or Buffett? No need to, they provide information.
Second paragraph - agreed that the company does not meet its fiduciary duty to shareholders. Not sure what action was suggested.
But bigger picture - an no animosity intended - your approach is basically how can I calm the masses and keep the disaffected numbers (which are growing) from making too much noise on the boards. My approach is to use the boards for their intended purposes, to communicate any and all thoughts about the company.
Fred is never going to answer any hard questions with hard facts. And I have news for those that buy his BS about his hands being tied by SEC, law firm, etc. He can articulate a strategy without naming names and can set forth some parameters on growth and revenues they expect to achieve with that strategy - every other company I can think of does this regularly. But if people are mollified by hearing him say that and he can continue to get away with it - more power to him. If people want to read cut and paste web opinions about litigation and patents and markmans and apply it to their conception of what EDIG is doing, that is their choice. I can say with certainty that between Never, Kool , Brad and myself we have put out some cold hard facts about the challenges facced by EDIG and the impossibility of some of their fairy tales coming to fruition. If people choose to disbelieve those faccts, that is also their choice.
Merely quashing discussion about these matter is not going to change the ultimate outcome, which is writ large upon the wall in my opinion.
LL
I think it is a great suggestion. With most companies it wouldn't need to be made because they are eager to share with their investors the things they are doing to increase shareholder value. Can you imagine other companies having to say "we can't figure out what Warren Buffet is doing" or "we can't ever get any updates out of Apple"? Maybe we should email them and see what's going on?
The shareholders are owed the fiduciary duty of being updated on the money they have invested, whether that news is good or bad. Here that duty is not being met and, in fact, the company is going to great lengths to avoid doing so.
LL
Coyote - we all know what Fred will say or won't say. I can't think of a single utterance from him since he "took over" that has had any meat on it. Have any revenues been derived as a result of any strategies Fred has communicated?
It's useless to ask EDIG for information. Much more realistic information has been adduced here on iHub from people who have actually worked and made money in this area than from any PRs, announcements, emails, or visits with EDIG.
The forum exists for people to ask questions and discuss their opinions about EDIG, not as a launching pad for taking all thoughts or questions to Fred.
LL
You will never hear that from EDIG until circumstances force them to act.
LL
They do not have to "let go" DM and I am sure that DM still has the same arrangement with them. The only difference is no litigation is taking place. If they decide to litigate and DM says we want a new deal, you have to pay us, then EDIG says no and DM says Bye Bye - THAT is a material event. As long as they just do nothing, EDIG's biggest strength, they don't have to announce anything. That's how I see it playing out.
LL
Never, they are correct. Unfortunately they seem to think ALL prior art has been overcome.
I'm still waiting to see what they have to say about DM. They probably are "maintaining the relationahip" even with no litigation because to end it would be a material event to be announced.
LL
Brad, I don't even see that there will BE a bar going forward.
LL
Brad,
Absent a whole lot of jumping through hoops, appealing the settlements, something called vacatur, or some other request for extraordinary relief the court's action of dismissal or settlement is construed as a final order. The courts do not want to keep cases going and going and going. This one is done.
DM took no action of any kind to indicate that they are appealing, want to appeal, plan to appeal, etc. It is over, kaput, done.
No federal court is going to revisit this markman in the context of the past cases or future cases. Also, if you need me to post something for you just send me an email. You are making a great contribution to this board.
LL
Brad - you are 100% correct. DM is history IMO. If they didn't see grounds for appealing the Markman what grounds are there for moving forward with a weakened patent or with these other sol-called patents. And why are there only about 4-5 of us who can actually understand the case is over. The FRCP are clear.
LL
I am not as impressed with your lawyering as I once was.
There are two times when a Markman can be appealed - Partial Summary Judgment and Final Verdict or Judgment depending on whether there is a jury. No need to do research - just read the FRCP.
There are cases where one party has reserved the right to appeal during the course of the trial and then seeks an expedited summary judgment. The reason the Markman comes toward the end is that the trial court wants the benefit of as much evidence as possible.
In this car there as no reservation of right to appeal, there was no appeal and there is a final judgment. It is over. The courts are clear that there is no interlocutory appeal so lawyers are very careful to preserve right of appeal if they feel there is a basis.
This is from an article by Orrick. I'm currently doing a matter with them and they are very good. "Notwithstanding the “de novo” aspect of Markman appeals, assume that the standard appellate rules apply; the Federal Circuit will not consider arguments and claim constructions not considered by the trial court. In the course of the Markman hearings, preserve your right to appeal." In EDIGs litigation this did not happen. De Novo is of no effect with regard to these cases. They are over.
LL
Never, I agree with you completely. 774 seems gutted to me. I can't conceive of a new set of litigation being undertaken in order to seek an "overturning" markman. If the opinion was flawed appeal would have been the better route.
As to the other patents I have never seen them as being particularly strong. If I were defending an infringement action based on them I would immediately ask for a re-exam.
That's why I think we won't see DM any more - if they hang around some hope may still exist, but mostly for the company payroll, not ours.
LL
Kool - I know you are a smart guy. And the conversation on this board is realistic, unlike elsewhere. I read you analysis. You made some good points but overall I disagreed with it.
But here's the point. It doesn't matter what you think unless you put it in an appeal on behalf of edig and filed it within 30 days of the final judgment (I think I said verdict before, sorry). No matter what anyone thinks it's done now. No appeal, final, no do-overs. Right?
Am I missing something? If we are playing by the FRCP it's over.
What is your strategy (or DM's) for overcoming the Markman? I haven't seen any from elsewhere except "ignore it," it's a "non-ruling," (that's my personal favorite) or "file Tier 3".
LL
Brad,
You should be a lawyer. You almost seem calm when writing about the law.
I am surprised at Kool's comments. Obviously a smart and experienced guy. There is not much to question here. I don't think the opinion was flawed at all and found no contradictions (though I have not read it in a while). But back to the point I have been making for several years - it doesn't matter what any of us think. It matters what the law is - and the law is that Markman. And the great legal minds of DM (obviously better than those of us posting) determined that there were no grounds for appeal. And the time for appeal is WELL past - either 30 or 60 days after the final judgment (can't remember, sorry) the deadline is over. And it's over.
So what is the new legal strategy? Bring the revised 774 litigation (by the way, I think it is weaker, not stronger) go through filing, answers, motions, discovery and then another Markman? The new court is going to have to distinguish it from the previous markman which has the full force and effect of law, or go against it, which I can't see. If there were grounds to issue a contrary markman then there were grounds to appeal it. And with all this going against EDIG there will not be much leverage for trying to get nuisance settlements.
So why would DM take all this on contingency? I don't see it.
LL
Kool, I don't agree with you, but let's assume you are correct.
There was no appeal taken. So the Markman stands. How does EDIG overcome that? Take the revised patent (much less all-encompassing in my opinion), bring lawsuits, go through the entire process, filing, answers, motions, discovery, and get another Markman from another circuit, which has to give the current markman full faith and credit yet distinguish the revised patent from it? DM is going to do that when they didn't agree with you that the current Markman was flawed - at least they didn't think such flaws were strong enough to get it overturned?
No offense, but you sound a little like some of the other posters. It's flawed, it's not accurate, the judge didn't understand. Well, OK, if that's the case, why didn't DM appeal it? What's the legal strategy here?
LL
Brad. Well said. Really, as you stated, it doesn't matter what you or I or the faithful think. It matters what the court thinks. And there is a process for challenging that. It's called appeal.
If DM is as almighty as some would have us believe then we should assume they carefully considered the option of appeal and would have followed through at the final verdict to do so if they thought there was merit in that course of action. Obviously they did not.
To think that the new version of 774 is now strengthened and will provide leverage for judicial victory in the face of the current Markman ruling is folly in my opinion.
LL
For two or more years I tried to make the point that what they think about the "tech", or, for that matter, about right and wrong, is inconsequential. The ONLY thing that matters is what happens in the courtroom.
Now that something has happened, they seem to think we can ignore it, re-do it, continue with the plan, etc.
LL
Never, I didn't read Kool's post but I have been befuddled about the reaction to the Markman since it was issued. Two points:
1. I agree with your assessment of it. Seems pretty straightforward, well-grounded in law, and they took Woody's own words and hoisted him on his own petard. The fact that the edig investors have a different interpretation of the "tech" is completely irrelevant. (They are also wrong, in my opinion, on said interpretation.)
2. The Markman is now controlling law and will have a significant impact on any future litigation if in fact any actually takes place.
LL