I think that the reciever can test the interests of the creditors and weigh them as they see fit, that is probably where the difference rests between a reciever and a trustee. A trustee carries out the plan the court gives it and each and every creditor gets its say in court all along the way, w/ the reciever the court is so disgusted that it will not bother to "hammer" out each and every detail weighing interest vs interest in any specific order. I guess you could say the reciever proceeds "ad hoc" granted im just making this all up because it seems to make sense. But if you do accept the single distinction of by order vs ad hoc you just might be able to see that just about anything goes (that is just about anything that one w/ integrity would do).

there is an overriding assumption that the judge assigned someone qualified for the job and that a good reputation just might take a front seat to technical legal knowledge.

how much was it for :)?eom

tomorrow is day 30

for diac to re-enforce a well established pattern that typically the reciever wouldn't give a hoot about would be rather stupid especially considering in constradistinction that under the circumstances its a virtual impossibility that the court could do anything that wouldn't fly

All things considered we just might have gotten lucky:

1.) a quiet reciever doesn't green light anything
2.) and doesn't red light anything
3.) by doing neither he has maximal flexibility to re open the can if need be
4.) to short circuit the diac notion that the arguement that turinni allegidly was not the ceo a year ago that somehow drago could undo the deal
5.) conversely that can stop board looting based on their legitimacy

clearly laster didn't say the board never had any authority whatsoever, nor did he say that their legitimacy was all binding but the reciever on the other hand can pick and choose--that is have his cake and eat it too

all in all this is the first time ever that things can only get worse for diac (in terms of what he can strong arm from the company) and things could only get better for shareholders--

in the end drago is either his own best friend or worst enemy all depending on what the reciever wants to do with whatever drago does.

for all of us its love-hate across the board which is wierd, but none of this schitzophrenia will amound to squat if the lawsuit does not continue moving forward

in the mean time i can only hope for a big win against tmobile.

with one person making all of the decisions it may very well be a perfect world!

that's assuming the old board didn't try to keep the stock listed. but i digress, all i'm trying to say, is "with great power comes great responsibility" in this case a huge win is big money and tons and tons of power. Anyone trained in business would know in their sleep that there would be lots of things to be considered...

how would anyone find a bench mark for all possible recievers in this kind of case? Im simply assuming the reciever is a student of warren buffet--all things considered, i'd say its a fair bet.

yes, what a change, wack-a-mole would have been a blessing for the old Board no matter how ineffective and pathetic, but it would nevertheless hardly been enough. Notwithstanding, any of the successes of the past, no matter how lucky and germane, will pale in conparison to the efforts of the reformed company if properly funded by a huge calypso win.

the industry has already taken the "blue pill", only a win against tmobile will force feed them the "red pill" so that they can wake up and smell the infringment. Untill then we are just barking at the wind.

the reciever has the "not so fast" card that he can and i believe will play.

put yourself in his shoes, imagine perfect moral integrety in paying yourself for making the most for shareholders, would you simply pay the shareholders a ton of money auction off the patent and then pray for laster to find another calypso?

NO, no way, you would realize that w/ a ton of money comes a huge responsibility to step up and take command and control an opportunity that is capible of sustaining itself in the greatest possible way--not to do so would be immoral and fully without integrety

the reciever's obligation to both the court and investors is exponentially depandent on how much money the patent is worth, its the reciever's moral obligation to EARN as much money as he is morally entitled to. If he chooses to work less to exit quickly and make little money when he could do better for both himself and investors he must not do so for any reason.

as far as the directors, he has a moral obligation to get the best directors he can afford.

each significant incremental increase in the proven value of the patent brings with it additional processes and controls that should be adhered to by the reciever--to act in any other way, that is to not use money to insure and explore in accordance with high level corporate business principles is to act wholly with out integrety.

a patent that proves that its the best that can be brings with it an avalanche of things that should be done a certain right-way. Its only logical that when forced to consider this myriad of possibliities that the all pervasive and inevatible truth is to re-instate the company if the best that the patent brings is billions from tmobile.

i could care less about coverage untill after we post a win--after that, its unsavory business unless the company has money and is moving forward.

the company will be relisted if there is a big win, then pr will be critical, i'd like the company to get 5 billion min, declare a special div for 4 B and then w/ the remaining capitalize the company and relist the stock

...one can dream

:)

good news, the merger happened, and tmobile only paid out a little more than a billion in cash, i don't know the details but
it may be that tmobile will then have its own stock in terms of
metro pcs? w/ this combination sprint will finally have to
consider merging w/ tmobile on tmobile's terms which means upgrading
the old nextel system and their current sprint pcs to asnap, in this way clyw stock will become metro-tmobile-sprint

i think i like the sound of this...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-03/deutsche-telekom-said-to-own-74-of-t-mobile-metropcs.html?cmpid=yhoo

between the two of you there is an obvious point, very simply there is nothing to stop '923 from using different maximum's for different radio (wifi etc...) techniologies

tmobile cannot try to say anything about the 2 or more parameters, they can try to say something about a maximum switching distance if they can also disengangle energy from distance which would make invalid assumptions about '923. I'd say on a hunch, the vicinity maximum is related to the local radio, different radio different maximum. Switching on strictly QOS would imply that QOS is not related to the local radio maximum but like i've said before the base station QOS is increasingly less likely to decrease as cellular base stations continue to improve and further its increasingly less likely that the short range radio (wifi) is going to offer better qos, hence the number one value proposition is off-loading

so if tmobile can't disentangle energy and qos from distance and cant offer a value proposition other than off loading they are monitizing their infringment by herding customers into a pre-established vicinity range which is thereby maximizing their infringment.

in the end it all comes out in the wash, small benefit from better qos on the average gives way to a small loss in qos, just because its concievable that there are some "SPECIAL" cases that seem to allow tmobile to make a switch w/o infringing, only in the case that infringment is a rare occurance would the judge rule against clyw.

that is because companies under recievership are under liquidation, clyw's '923 patent is a wild card, rest assured there is a threshold value whereby shareholders would probably get nothing, that would be some value under 25 million which to me would be saying the most pervasive control in the telecommunications industry is effectively worthless.

hence, you are basically saying the patent is worthless when you say the stock is cancelled.

So what is it, are you saying that even though the patent is worth billions the stock is cancelled?, if you are then you either you are not saying what you really believe or you don't have a clue

very frankly i'm tired of anyone talking about anything other than the value of the patent, if you think the stock is cacelled then the value of the patent is moot and one has to wonder why you are here?

? i never thought of that, but maybe indemnification already provides diac all the protection he needs

i think that mabye part of the process involved is to teach. Here it may mean that the purpose for the rewrite was to make a rhetorical point rather than to actually get the judge to approve the wording. If i were the judge I think that i'd want to keep some words like distance and leave it to the analysis of tmobile's processes to bring in what distance realy means. My rational is that if as a judge i were to translate distance into how someone skilled in the art interpret's it, that would be tantimount to claiming that not only was I a judge but also somone skilled in the art of wireless telecommunication.

I don't have a clue precisely where along the way the injunction has its place but still see it as being a probable eventuality

I agree and hope that it will be "hammered out" in an occam fashion that is simple concise and easy for a jury to understand.

The judge has clearly indicated that ability.

I think that every thing turns on two interpretations

1.) that the judge says, "ok, just because i used "distance" in
the markman construction don't assume i meant it could be
disentangled from energy.

2.) and "just because i said parameters meant two or more parameters, i didn't discount what i previously stated about it being able to be 'just one' parameter during the hearing--that's because at a given time its ok for it to be just one since it doesn't change that the system overall still has more than one"

if i'm correct, clyw will get its injunction

sounds like a lot of bull


in any non infringing application they will go the way of too
many problems for their return

i think there is probably is a precident for having an investigation, recievers probably call for them all the time.

this is the key topic, what to do w/ all the money...

I say spread it around, to shareholders, to the company, to investigators, and some to the reciever, and based on what the investigators find, the reciever can decide what to do with all of the past directors etc.

the way i see it drago and williamson are in the clear, that line
of investigation is moot--unsavory but moot. for everyone else its a different story

sorry but that is just the way it is...

it was only said that tmobile was a potential bidder--that has clearly changed. already the judges mandates have been modified, i expect them to continue to be modified, about 1 in 1000 companies exits a recievership w/o liquidation (just a wild guess) but it happens, there will be no liquidation no patent auction if drago gets his way. The judge came down hard on clyw, standard business sence follows a simple rule, sell it and that's what its worth, clearly that is not being followed here, business sense says cut losses and get out, clearly that is not being followed here--the game has changed before our eyes, we don't think of it that way since we all along wanted a markman etc.

If sir hig is correct and mathiews has spent 3000 hours you can bet they are going for billions, it just doesn't make sense to drago not to, drago could have thrown in the towel at the beginning and said, look i want my 28 percent, i want it now, so go ahead and auction off the patent. THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN, hence something has changed and i see no reason why that w/ a huge win the reciever would'nt say "not so fast"...

sec? youre kidding right? the sec protected potential investors from making a ton of money and that's about it!

that attitude has never gotten this company anywhere, only a real thoughtful investigation by a professional that intensively interviews directors, gathers evidence, and then pulls together the pieces will get anywhere w/ this mess

very frankly, things had quieted down nicely, but then various contingents came along and have stirred the pot, now that the prospect of an investigation is up for discussion either things will shift back to the patent or when the time comes the push for an investigation will be on most investors minds.

I'm patient, unhappy, but patient, i'll follow tolstoy, patience and time, and let the reciever unravel the truth...

Answer to POLL: 0.1% should be gone into investigating the BOD and then to decide

trust me, the more money calypso gets, the more likely the truth will out, if i were on the bod i'd not be posting, nor communicating with anyone but the reciever, further i'd be requesting that the reciever call a monthly meeting to order to insure that everyone put their differences behind them not because i or anyone on the bod would be expecting to stay on the board, but because its what is needed to help usher in the new directors. The harder the directors fight one another, the more likely they all will be to take in the you know where...

(the monthly meeting would be simple, has any director talked to anyone regarding the company and if so what has been discussed and i'd have the meetings taped. and anyone that did not want to enter into a verified discussion would be relinquishing their directorship without appeal and on immediate demand from the reciever)

if drago want's to get "even" with the BOD, the best thing he can do is to bring in a couple of billion. In the end, some on the bod will probably benefit, and of course so will drago. I think i'd wind up being pretty happy too

"This despite Turrini claiming to own 40M shares" i guess im missing something

and re stock being cancelled, mabye some might have wanted that, i don't know, its crossed my mind and at some level, it provides relief from ever having to deal w/ the financials.

the reciever must have a duty to shareholders to investigate distributions to the BOD--but only if there is enough money to enable it. if they are as crooked as you say, they don't want an all time mega win since then the reciever will be able to put together an army of investigators--if i were him and clyw got say 5 billion, i'd immideatly divote 5 million to a full blown investigation.

stock halting is the #1 issue, and its a huge one, anyone that looks at the historical chart for clyw can easily see that once shareholders were well situated in regards to their positions news was nothing short of magic.

There should be no doubt in anyone's mind that longs could be taking a small fraction of their position off the table even now for huge returns that would give newcommers a chance to also get huge returns in the not so distant future, others would be trading the stock so that they could accumulate a position and in general so they could keep watch over everything that's going on.

all in all the stock would be trading around a buck now selling even 5% on one's positions would be life-inspiring...

but nooooo, the company could not foster confidence in the SEC and hence we suffer big time.

have to wonder if the bod's profile relative to their actual compliance was the problem-all in all i think that their precption was that the company's integrity rang hollow in that the few proper actions that were taken were simply for the sake of appearing proper and that alone.

everyone should be benefiting and none of us are its not right and is neither lasters, the reciever's, nor the SEC's fault--we are paying brutally for others mistakes

I have a saying that i say alot, "i'm asking you to do the easiest thing in the world--nothing!", you would be supprised at how diffacult it is for people not to heed those words, in this case i'd say that is what i love about the reciever, with perfection my hunch is that he's opting out of every stupid value destroying proposition that has been thrown his way, he's not trying to get a deal that would give him some kind of instant gratification. Often that's the hardest part of doing nothing for those that need that rush--so maybe its not the easiest thing in the world for some people--but it should be!

exactly, --I try to get to my issues w/ the photo captions not a real pressing need at this point, but maybe the sooner the better since the reciever may soon have something to say

the web site, though technologically adequate, was highly criticized for content by laster, the last thing we need is any of that old stale stuff lying around stinking things up. Some of the photo descriptions are misrepresentations. There are only a few items of the past that are relevant.

the founder leon, the patent (etc), the originating company kleer vu, the results from the markman, judge laster's opinion, information about the reciever, the reciever's letter to the court, and a notice from the reciever regarding the company going forward. several photo descriptions need to be dramatically revised.

i can envision a very unique pathway for the company going forward with the reciever and creative input from shareholders, very frankly there is much hatfullness that is still involved in trying to insidiously control the company and there are those that are doing good deeds for us that are still very much beholden to the old regieme. Their self-serving jellousy is pointless and needs to be put down but it will take time.

additionally there needs to be work done on the financial structure, a RSM should be the center of interest as well as acquiring / producing new technology

very good and glad you agree, i think to move swiftly through a more fundamental (abstract) proof would have the greatest impact on the courts (backing it up w/ details surely can't hurt).

however, as i have stated, and some have come to agree, a fundmental desire to re-instate the company w/ a new BOD picked by the reciever etc. is a good thing and is the foot that should be put forth w/ the court in a trial to calculate damages.

this may be enabled / hastened if (and perhaps only if) someone were to file a provisional patent extension to '923, hence w/ some creativity and a lot of selflessness an about 150 bucks one could approach the reciever w/ a proposal, based on a provisional patent application that would have the potential to add enough value to the company that the company may be reinstated.

i hope that you and others so skilled will keep this in the back of their minds...

imagine a humongus distribution and still having tons of bucks to re-instate the company--best of both worlds

untill they post the pic its all cheese

Good point, that's bread and butter for patent lawyers, however, i think that would only be a last resort fall back--thinking about it more, i'd say that if tmobile tries to invoke a "single parameter" it would be tantamount to fraud--if it is impossible i almost hope they try to pull the wool over the judges eyes so that they can be exposed not only as infingers but as fraudulent scamming liars

I hate to be the bearer of uncertainty

if it can be shown that tmobie can use only 1 pre determined parameter, its over (but i don't think so so please read on)

its now going to become very technical in that tmobile is going to have to disclose all of its technology

my guess is that calypso may want to appeal this asap (i would)

our hope lies in the fact that there are three devices in intimate contact with one another, based on the simple math of it, there must always be at least 2 parameters (?):

i think that the arguement is that the switch occurs via a back loaded server, hence there is one parameter for switching to cellular and one for the paired disparate radio, nothing says that both parameters need to be used at the same time in order to make the switching decision yet clearly their are (must be?) two such parameters

so if im correct we are gravy

Go Calypso!

PS its very possible that the court knows this, and so they are saving us alot of trouble--i do think we have to see things that way in order to keep our sanity

it appears that the claims posted regarding paging want to treat pagers seperately from cellular, claims 24 - 30 are not affected I am not sure what calypso lawyers were contemplating--maybe a back up arguement in dealing w/ future texting claims

the question is will pagers ever become obsolete? they don't interfere with hospital communications etc.

I am not sure I fully disagre with Judge Payne on the "pager" issue and unless one talked with leon well then things might have been rationalized differently.

all in all we wait and see or until someone comes around and shows us that we don't know squat and have just been toasted?

If calypso truly has a point they may be able to file an interloquitory appeal regarding the pager issue, if that's is the only negative outcome of the markman tmobile is still toast

that tmobile has been smoked, SH's account of Payne is no nonsense all the way, some might recall payne came down on rambus's spoilation a problem that plagues them to this day.

on the flip side, it may be that Payne will come down on tmobile w/ plain common sense definitions that at once make the patent appear as non-obvious as tmobile's infringment is obvious

if i could see the court thinking based on the report, i'd say that it may be that we will get just that--and if so, the skys the limit and we will get our injunction

further, my take is that the court is truly preparing for trial, they don't see a settlement nor will they push one. I think that there are big opportunities for the court to make breakthroughs in patent law but further, since calypso's original calypso shareholders are still entitled to their fair share, this is very different from NTP's situation where origial shareholders were cut out because of shady dealings and a BK that left them high and dry. Here, with the Deleware court actually mandating "maximization" the federal court will not pressure the parties to settle in the traditional prefunctory manner.

more and more i think laster did have hunch of the value of 923 and wanted shareholders to get the fair shake they deserved--a fair shake that only a reciever could provide.

one vs more than one parameter...

i believe the court will side with calypso on this one, "sometimes" warrents it, and the judge knows that this is a dividing concept capible of being the utmost "cut and dry"

frankly i think that the whole viscinity issue is just a smoke screen and this is perhaps the most critical matter.

because under certain circumstances all components may be non-contributory save for one, hence a parameter vector is essentially 1 dimensional hence even the most restrictive definition still allows for only one parameter, this could be a matter of either sequance or geometrical configuration, hence one could say for example that the system "self trains" to rely only on 1 parameter, under those conditions, even if tmobile did'nt self-train but used a single parameter, they would be infringing because they are basically applying a presumption that has already been determined on a pre-existing set of training data

im exhausted but my point is that this is an important issue that can be crafted in if need be, the problem with all fo this is that we do not have alot to go on from tmobile, after we pin this down no doubt they hope to say "supprise" some where further down the line

"under advisement" is not "under arguement"!;)eom