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.
I'm here - just waiting for news. Check in maybe once a week nowadays.
I would tend to agree with you HighRider. I read the whole thing too and they make some valid, well thought out, and documented points. I'm not sure how this actually plays out though and whether judges read through all this documentation or rubber stamp decisions.
I am still hopeful that we will see our day in court.
I'm glad to see that we are still pushing forward with the appeal process. This couldn't be the most ridiculous case in the history of business law if you didn't have a long drawn out appeal process where a judge contorts the patent language and prevents the patent from being seen by a jury. This is a movie script guys - come on, not a real life case... right??
What kind of movie would it be if it wasn't wrought with plot twists?
Rehashing how everyone feels about Dave Williams is not helpful to the discussion at this point. Everyone knows how everyone feels. Can we focus on where we are going from here?
Regardless of how folks feel about the company website. It is a tool that can be used to inform. The company desired to use it to manipulate and misinform the shareholders in large part and now that the company is in receivership, the shareholder body still doesn't have access to reputable information as to what is going on with their investment in CLYW - aside of this forum and the court websites.
For many of us longs who have invested tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in CLYW, this is very frustrating.
Whether you think Dave Williams made a good or bad decision in putting the company into receivership, he definitely drew a line in the sand which substantially changed the course of this company. It remains to be seen whether or not that line in the sand will result in shareholders receiving any value for their investments.
Good to some of the other longs still commenting on here. I see that things have simmered down again for awhile. Still here sticking it out with you guys. Just paid for another year of the website. Wish I had more to put up there. I think if we kept it fresh with the status of the case and had our patent documents up there we might be able to get some better media coverage of this debacle.
For anyone that cares, the CalypsoWireless.us website is up for renewal again in a few months.
Everything is still registered under my account. I'll probably just pay for another year.
Aside of the post I got from Mark Gentile a few months back, I've had no other requests to do anything with the site.
Now I am not saying Dave Williams should be unilaterally defended either. He did openly lie about posting on these forums which completely destroyed his credibility and caused lots of problems for him in court. He had a raging temper too and caused a lot of problems for himself in interacting with others. But that doesn't mean he is responsible for this sinking ship. He was a board member - shut out of most communication at best. Last time I checked he was never an officer of the company.
If Dave Williams had complete control over Turrini how is it that Turrini managed to hold an illegal shareholders meeting, record a vote that was unlawful and less then the required majority. "Vote" his friends onto the board in a secret meeting and then sign a double secret settlement agreement with drago. None of which Dave was privy too. Christian Turrini was the captain of this sinking ship from start to finish. I would have put the company into receivership too after that voting debacle.
Last I checked the company was run by Christian Turinni during the whole illegal shareholder vote debacle / delisting so how exactly did the SEC suspend CLYW because of Dave William's lack of knowledge and leadership.
Other board members through their agents were manipulating information on this message board as well.
hahahahahah I agree - this stock is something else. Never seen anything like it before. We gotta poll together and write the book / movie for sure when the dust settles.
What an emotional roller coaster this stock is. Glad to hear we filed something - looking forward to reading it.
It has been quite the ride folks. So sad to see it end this way. I did everything in my power to try and scrape this thing up off the ground and shake it off. What a colossal waste of time and resources. If it does sell at an auction, maybe we will end up with a piece after the vultures take their share.
I can see nothing has really changed since last month. Any news on the appeal that we are supposed to file tomorrow?
Just waiting on that final ruling I guess. Good to see something filed though.
I was under the impression that we couldn't file an appeal until the final ruling was made. Anyone have a different impression?
Thanks general
Who deleted the sticky posts?
Agreed as well.
This is discouraging news fellow longs. Not much else to say really.
Mine etrade account is showing the same thing.
Here's the status update from the receiver.
http://www.calypsowireless.us/public/blog/join-status-report-court-appointed-receiver/
I didn't get a chance to put it up last night. I was having problems getting into the web server. I'm going to give it another go tonight.
I have a PDF of a court filling that I received from the receiver via Kyle Pierce that I will be posting to the company blog / website this evening.
It is a joint status report to the court. There is nothing novel in this report that we've not already seen in all the court docs that have been filled thus far.
I'll update this message board later this evening after I have a chance to update the website.
I can understand your frustration - I share many of your frustrations with how things have been going. But providing that kind of personal information in this kind of environment opens yourself to liability and also just makes it easier for less resourceful folks to abuse it and create a problem.
Posting Drago's personal contact numbers on this forum is not ok guys. If you want to message them to each other that's one thing, but this is a public forum and there are hundreds of people that I'm sure would want to give Drago a piece of their mind at this point.
None of you I am sure would feel to kindly to have your home telephone number and work number posted out on the Internet without your permission on an angry forum.
The appropriate party to contact is the receiver.
I need to digest all the recent filings before I respond. This is certainly not what I expected - especially less than two months before trial, from a judge who had so closely held all parties to the filing deadlines. Something smells fishy here.
Unfortunately I cannot make a post sticky if it is older than 48 hours.
I also agree on most of these points and I think overall it was a very well put together argument.
I'm interested to see what T-mobile will have to say.
We've had a bunch of filings over the last few weeks. I'll refresh the docs sticky this week. Thanks for posting them folks.
Someone else who sees the picture the same way I do - thank you.
I've been posting on this board for a long time and have been involved in a technical capacity with helping other posters to understand all of this stuff.
You are welcome to read my prior posts if you doubt my technical fortitude.
You are totally missing the point Lurker.
I agree with you that signal strength is important, but signal strength is just another way of saying distance plus something else.
The point is that you cannot compute signal strength without distance being part of the calculation which is why T-mobile has a major problem. A wavelength is called a wave length because it is a measurement of the distance between two identical points on the waveform.
Read this intro article to frequency and wavelength here:
http://www.lucketts.net/tutorial.html
Then Read this article on Free Space path loss:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-space_path_loss
And Finally read this article on Link Budgeting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_budget
I also copied this from stack overflow for you as well:
Free Space Path Loss depends on two parameters: First is the frequency of radio signals;Second is the wireless transmission distance. The following formula can reflect the relationship between them.
FSPL (dB) = 20log10(d) + 20log10(f) + K
d = distance
f = frequency
K= constant that depends on the units used for d and f
If d is measured in kilometers, f in MHz, the formula is:
FSPL (dB) = 20log10(d)+ 20log10(f) + 32.44
From the Fade Margin equation, Free Space Path Loss can be computed with the following equation.
Free Space Path Loss=Tx Power-Tx Cable Loss+Tx Antenna Gain+Rx Antenna Gain - Rx Cable Loss - Rx Sensitivity - Fade Margin
With the above two Free Space Path Loss equations, we can find out the Distance in km.
Distance (km) = 10(Free Space Path Loss – 32.44 – 20log10(f))/20
The Fresnel Zone is the area around the visual line-of-sight that radio waves spread out into after they leave the antenna. You want a clear line of sight to maintain strength, especially for 2.4GHz wireless systems. This is because 2.4GHz waves are absorbed by water, like the water found in trees. The rule of thumb is that 60% of Fresnel Zone must be clear of obstacles. Typically, 20% Fresnel Zone blockage introduces little signal loss to the link. Beyond 40% blockage the signal loss will become significant.
FSPLr=17.32*v(d/4f)
d = distance [km]
f = frequency [GHz]
r = radius [m]
The court found that the term "Pre-established vicinity range" as it relates to our patent means "a pre-determined maximum distance between wireless device and computer facility"
So you can see how language posted from a manufacturer about the specific maximum functional range of a specific device or technology may come into play in the case.
Also, when you say that signal strength matters to a device what you are really saying is that distance matters, since you cannot compute signal strength without distance.
I'm not saying that it matters in the reality of deploying APs and actually delivering service to users.
But it matters in that both router and ap manufacturers PUBLISH recommended distances. I think what some other posters were wondering is would T-mobile be able to find some loophole that said router manufacturers post maximum recommended distances and access point manufacturers don't so T-mobile may come back and say they use access points.
See what I'm getting at? I know that in the field it makes no difference at all what the manufacturer says. I posted extensively about this below if you care to read my thoughts on it.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=79467984&txt2find=signal
Most routers and access points that support flashing with custom firmware like DD-WRT support billing for access and the segmentation of private and public wireless networks.
I agree with all of this except for the fact that it has been in my experience that both wireless routers and access points have manufacturer posted recommended distances based on their deployment configuration and type of antennae used as Lurker mentioned.
I am an IT professional as well and agree with this completely. Depending on the application, router and access point may be one in the same, even if segmented logically inside a single physical device. It is an important distinction but would be completely lost on a jury.
It's in a sticky at the top.
I am quite interested in seeing what they come up with as well. They will certainly have to show a bit more of their hand here.