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 - I think THAT is the business plan.
LL
An ecosystem of computing? Wow.
LL
That's about 3 years + another 1/2 year given any ongoing IFE / EVU revenues. Of course, with no published plan for ongoing/increasing revenues to stimulate investor interest in the stock it will be a .03 PPS for the entire period.
LL
It will be interesting to see if EDIG is even in existence in December. Does anyone know how much money they had to get through this year and what the acccumulated expenses are through December? There will be hardly any revenues during that period IMO.
LL
I think it is a hail mary and, since the shareholders are uninformed, they will see it as progress.
LL
Here is USPTO language on a supplemental reissue declaration.
After the first filed reissue oath or declaration, one or more additional reissue oaths or declarations may later be required. For example, if errors not covered by a prior reissue declaration are later corrected during prosecution of the application, then a supplemental reissue oath/declaration under either 37 CFR 1.175(b) or (c) must be filed prior to allowance by the examiner. If any error previously stated in the original reissue oath or declaration is still being corrected, then the supplemental oath/declaration need only state that “every error in the patent which was corrected in the present reissue application, and which is not covered by the prior oath(s) and/or declaration(s) submitted in this application, arose without any deceptive intention on the part of the applicant.” If no error previously stated in the original reissue oath or declaration is still being corrected, then the supplemental reissue oath or declaration must also specify at least one error being corrected in the reissue application. The supplemental reissue oath or declaration must be signed by the same parties who can sign an original declaration/oath.
LL
I can no longer see the upside for DM. Before there was negative precedent it was a good deal for them as they were probably going to get nuisance settlements and take 40%. Until the patents were battle-tested had hopes their taking the case meant possible real recurring revenue, or at least big wins.
It became clear in TX that was not going to be the case and by the time of Samsung the writing was on the wall.
Of course, I saw a conflict of interest between DM and the shareholders - they got their $ by taking small nuisance settlements, EDIG stayed afloat, and the PPS fell steadily.
If they leave, then all remaining hope vanishes IMO.
LL
Yes, I also didn't notice any helpful hints on changing the wording for 737; and the changed wording on 774 seems to weaken the patent, not strengthen it. I also have to question how they could possibly get a favorable markman when there is a negative one, with the full force and effect of federal law, on the more compelling version of 774. It seems to me, based on how the judge handled claims one and two, that she would not have viewed the remainder in a favorable light either.
I think EDIG is at a real crossroads here. It's clear the PPS is never going anywhere; the question now is will the company survive.
LL
Never - I think your projected time periods are WAY too short. The CO litigation and the re-exam provide a roadmap for how to defend successfully any infringement litigation. All the hurdles which EDIG would have to overcome are out there and laid bare for any good IP litigator to follow. If a defendant avails himself of all the available tactics it could easily be two years before any conclusions are reached, and the merits do not favor EDIG in my somewhat educated opinion.
LL
They forgot to add "and that this will make the patent stronger (cough) and allow for litigation involving "FUTURE infringement activities."
LL
I see now that we are going to "overcome" the markman ruling by virtue of "winning" the re-exam and strengthening the patent. This is great news. All this time I thought the Markman was controlling.
From another post somewhere in never-never land.
"When Judge Krieger's ruling was originally made public, I and some others wanted to see an appeal, but EDIG management and attorneys (and Gil) had a better idea. They would overcome the ruling by using the reexam to revise the patent in ways that render her ruling obsolete and irrelevant.
When we sue infringers now, we will be suing them using this revised patent. Fred and the attorneys appear happy with the changes. Quite likely we have strengthened the patent during the re-exam. It is also possible, however, that we have narrowed its applicability somewhat, and now DM will have to consider this in deciding how to proceed with a new round of suits. Maybe in East Texas?
Hopefully we'll start to get some larger settlements, but sooner or later someone will want to take it to court, and when they do, we'll have another Markman, which is much more likely to go our way."
LL
Except I think there was a nuisance settlement from Samsung. With the Markman ruling there will be not much chance of nuisance settlements.
And I agree with you - even a rudimentary understanding of the English language, not the legal language, should cause great concern for investors on the RAM/flash issue. But EDIG investors ignore this just like they ignore the steady decline of the PPS in the face of "optimistic belief" pronouncements from EDIG.
LL
Joe, I think this is where the disconnect occurs. The point I was making earlier (although with sarcastic humour) was that the Markman and the re-exam have put the lie to the comment that "if you pull the card and it doesn't work it's EDiG inside." I see Brad is addressing the RAM issue.
I frankly don't see any way EDIG can make this claim now. I would like to hear the company say "though this may not be the specific device that infringes here are some examples of the types of devices we believe are now infringing our patents and here is our timeframe and plan of action." Virtually all other companies relying on patents as a source of revenue do this.
Untili see that I believe they aren for all practical purposes, finished with infringe$ent litigation.
LL
If we hadn't lost the markman, if the primary patent had not been altered by the re-exam, AND if both those things had happened and we could still seek retroactive damages instead of just future damages, then the list of removable flash devices might be significant. Now, not so much.
LL
Brad reads everything.
LL
Brad - just pull out the removable flash drive and, if it doesn't work, EDIG is inside.
WHAT? No removable flash drive?
LL
Ha ha. I'm old. And I have more patience sometimes than others. Ask Coyote if you don't believe me.
LL
Kool, I saw a post where you posited that this area of the law is complex, we need guidance from ecperts, etc. The law is the law. It has a few more wrinkles in IP, but not many. Federal rules of civil procedure and caselaw / precedent govern. The subject matter may be complex but the law? Not so much.
And EDIG is behind the 8 Ball as far as the law is concerned. Don't need a lot of guidance to tell us that.
LL
Kool, I'm not remotely offended. I'm no expert - just know enough to be dangerous. I worked for thomsonreuters for 20 years and ran the first iteration of what has become west's IP Solutions group, selling patents, trademark and patent tools to IP lawyers. Think derwent, micropatent, thomson file histories, thomson data analyzer, etc., much now available through thomson innovation.
So I lived in this world for a few years, though never practiced IP law, nor wanted to. I know just enough to have an opinion, which I have had for some time, that the patents are not going to do the shareholders much good.
LL
That's been my concern for years. I dumped 200K for tax purposes but may not have that offset on a regular basis. Still have 300k. Is that huge? Sure feels like it with a 3 cent stock.
LL
Oh, are we in Galaxy too, as well as Samsung, Apple, etc. So far, we haven't been in anything that I am aware of, except Fujitsu F-10 for a bright shining moment.
LL
Ah, my very point.
EDIG faces a mountain of challenges to get back into court. And I don't know why people think getting to court is going to cure any ills. Look at what the PPS did during the last two rounds of litigation.
Meanwhile, I feel like I have stepped back in time 3 years or so from reading posts about this. We're talking numbers of infringers, Tier III filings, settlements, etc. That ship has sailed IMO.
LL
You should check out PTSC's history on re-exams.
I am not sure there is going to be any basis for filing a next round of litigation. Part of the foundation of the remaining patents has been gutted and there is a little thing called a Markman that is going to have a deleterious impact. I'm not sure a law firm can find a justification for taking any contingency litigation based on "future" infringement or on the remaining, weakened patents (which may still face more re-exam) . And I know EDIG does not have the money to pay for such litigation.
LL
It will be interesting to see what real, live ACTIONS EDIG publishes - as opposed to generalizations about looking forward to monetizing something, blah, blah, blah.
LL
Tim, that is correct. And even their past collection of "damages" were mere nuisance settlements which did nothing other than steadily erode the shareprice as investors began to see there was no long term growth plan.
LL
I did not expect an increase because anyone who is goint to invest in EDIG is already invested. Shares are being bought by those addicted to the process and the slowly fading hope of edig.
I have yet to see, nor do I think we will see, anything from the company outlining a plan for growing revenue. We see less and less from the company with any sunstance and more and more about going through motions. I can't even remember the last time they mentioned munchie as I think they realize that carrot is not enticing anyone.
LL
I continue to be astounded that there are posts being written that the markman was "incomplete" or that the judge didn't rule on all the issues.
1. DM and EDIG lost their right to appeal if they believed any of this. The time in which to do so is long gone.
2. All parties agreed on the record that if the judge ruled against EDIG on the first two claims no reason to rule on the other. That's what happened.
3. The Markman is complete, has the force of law in all federal jurisdictions, and bars EDIG from any "enforecement" based on their previous legal theories. It is my opinion that it will also serve as a barrier to enforcement of future alleged infringement, but we'll wait and see.
I don't understand how people who know nothing about the law can just make statements such as "it's incomplete" or "we can start over now." I shake my head.
LL
Never, EDIG's lawyers have already told them that there will be no past infringement collection at this point. That's why they are careful to use the words "future infringement" in their public utterances.
LL
Tim, I respectfully disagree. 10 years ago EDIG was news-driven, maybe even 5-6 years ago. Not now.
Now the only news that will drive the stock is factual information about revenue creation. You see what the news re the USPTO did - took the stock down into the mid-twos. In my opinion, any news that does not have some real revenue data in it will be negative insofar as the PPS is concerned. And I don't personally see anything EDIG can do to create revenue from the patents or from Munchie.
Munchie does not now, nor will it ever, exist, and the challenges posed by limited future timelines and a massive roadblock called a markman ruling will prove too great to overcome.
LL
I have been reading all the celebratory posts and have to confess I am staggered. I don't understand what is the cause for celebration. Maybe I am having another lapse of judgment.
We have a negative markman, DM did not appeal it, we have a weakened, nay, mortally wounded patent, and we have no ability to attempt to enforce it retroactively. How is this going to generate revenues for EDIG? I'd love to hear someone's outline of what is going to take place in order to achieve that result.
LL
Forgot to add, this is only for future alleged infringement, as edig is careful to note, so that dramatically lowers the potential damages. Let's not get too carried away as that and the markman pose significant hurdles.
LL
Never, as someone who has been around this block a number of times, I will say this: everyone has to go around the block until they are tired of it. Some of us require more trips than others.
No one is paying any attention to the markman which is the elephant in the room. The courts WILL pay attention.
LL
Joe,
Good to "see" you here. I hope you are well also. And I agree with your comment, I was clarifying what I thought about it.
Take care my friend.
LL
At least you only cost a guy $10k. People have been taken for much more by well-meaning shareholders.
LL
The companies dropped EDIG because EDIG chose not to do what it took to go forward - they even made a conscious decision to withdraw from the biggest deal they ever had.
LL
The problem is that onnly DM made money - shareholders lost money.
LL
This was a great deal for DM - they got 40% of all these recoveries - how much was the total - $10M gross. They filed cookie cutter pleadings and the only work they had to do was at the markman. I thought the main lawyer did a good job overall except for the fact that he was hamstrung on this hearing by the Woody/RAM issue and the fact that the patents were not that strong any way you look at them.
Any law firm would want to collect $6M or so for that work.
The question is are they signing on for the "next round" and will the next round even exist. Finally, remember that the PPS DROPPED every time a "settlement" was reached and plummeted after the markman. Rightfully so.
EDIG WAS at the leading edge as I mentioned in an earlier post with some good products but THEY failed/chose not to "monetize" or market or support them.
LL
In real companies they do this thing called marketing.
Never heard "get the word out " in my entire corporate experience.
LL
Never, I agree with your assessment of Norris and ALL his companies as well as the current state of EDIG and the markman result looming over the IP future. It will be interesting to see what and when the company has something to say about DM after touting them so highly and tying their prospects to them.
The really unfortunate thing is that despite this flim flam business model they had, at one time, some nice products. Theoretically they could have made some money but, in my opinion, chose the path of selling just enough to keep the PRs coming and the lights burning in order to propogate the various stock opportunities and salaries for the insiders.
LL
As you know, attorneys are often wrong!
LL