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.
As promised...
A little late probably about the mediation and I am still awaiting my lawyer friend to address a few questions I sent to him a few days ago regarding MSJs.
Here it is and I am only posting what I deem to be informative:
As an aside, I have mediated hundreds of cases as a lawyer for one of the parties. I have also been through mediator training, and have occasionally served as the actual mediator.
Although I continue to feel that the case will settle just based on national litigation statistics alone, I have never expected, and do not now expect, that a settlement occurred last week during the mediation conference --- it is difficult to keep such things secret, and as a result, if settlement had occurred, the share price would not have faltered. I do not know whether the EDoT rules require a "formal" report to Judge Ward that would show up on PACER, but in any event, I expect we will hear, sooner or later, that there has been no settlement to date. The important point is that this is not bad news.
It is not at all unusual that a case does not settle at the mediation conference, yet for settlement to occur at some later time ... negotiations rarely cease just because the mediation conference is concluded. Indeed, one purpose of mediation is to at least narrow the gap between offers previously made between the parties, and thereafter, negotiations can continue up to, and even during and after, the trial itself. Although the parties can simply negotiate between themselves, it is common that the mediator will stay with the case, exchanging telephone calls and/or letters between the lawyers, in order to continue to work toward settlement --- this can go on for weeks, or even months.
Assuming I am correct that there has been no settlement to this point, my feeling, again, is that it will occur later --- one of two scenarios is most likely. First, settlement could happen within the next 30 days, and this is because the case is still “fresh” on the minds of all concerned and they thus remain motivated, before they move on to attend to other matters. If that doesn’t occur, then the second possibility is that settlement would occur prior to the Christmas holidays --- in situations where both sides know in their “heart of hearts” that a case should be settled, neither the lawyers nor the clients will want to spend the holiday season preparing for trial, and for this reason, the January 8 trial setting is a powerful motivator. I may have mentioned this to you before, but legal fees increase geometrically during the 30 days prior to any big trial --- everything must be put in “final form”, witnesses must be exhaustively prepped for their testimony, examination and cross-examination of every witness must be prepared, and, in general, every “i” must be dotted and every “t” crossed. With at least 15 lawyers on our side and some 40 representing the defendants collectively, in addition to high-dollar experts located around the globe, you can begin to understand the magnitude of what I am talking about. Large multi-national corporations will spare no expense in the initial stages of a case, but when it comes down to actually entering the courtroom after settlement negotiations have proved fruitful to any realistic extent, the prospect of significantly multiplying legal fees, together with the realization that there is still risk present in the case and it is now imminent, becomes a significant factor. And, of course, there is also a powerful motivation on the part of the plaintiffs, who could go to trial and get nothing. My prediction, therefore, is that, if the case does not settle within the next 30 days, we will see such occur by mid-December. Obviously, all of this is based on the premise that one side or the other has not taken a “We will never settle at any cost” mindset --- but those cases are few and far between.
(Regarding Summary judgements and basic answers)
An Answer is an Answer, nothing more, nothing less. It is not a motion for summary judgment, which people will instantly recognize ... such a motion will actually be entitled exactly what it is, i.e., a “Motion for Summary Judgment”. It will not be called anything else, and no other kind of pleading will be so entitled. It is what it is.
As to summary judgment strategy, I have said many times that I expect both sides to file MSJs. All of the following is necessarily on an IMO basis, but due to the favorable nature of the Markman ruling, TPL/PTSC will file based on infringement. And for the same reason, the J3 will file based on invalidity --- they virtually must do so, because otherwise, they risk the likelihood that Judge Ward will rule favorably on our motion, thus judicially declaring infringement as a matter of law while, at the same time, leaving the issue of invalidity in the hands of a jury of laymen. Ain’t gonna happen. Plus, remember that the recent KSR decision from the United States Supreme Court greatly expanded the concept of “obviousness” in favor of defendants, so that the J3 would be nuts not to make such an attempt. Also remember the Forgent case, in which the defendant stipulated to infringement, then went to trial and won the entire case on invalidity --- the plaintiff-patentee got nothing. Simply stated, “invalidity trumps infringement”, i.e., only a valid patent can be infringed --- so, if you had the potential “trump card” in your hand, wouldn’t you play it? I certainly would.
... the mere fact that motions (MSJs) are filed doesn’t mean that either will necessarily be granted. If I am wrong and the J3 don’t file an MSJ based on invalidity, that would be very significant --- I think the chances they won’t file are maybe 5%, but one never knows for sure.
So, as an overview, assuming there was no settlement last week, negotiations will continue, with or without the mediator, all the way up to and including the trial (unless a motion for summary judgment on invalidity is actually granted). And if the case has not settled by the “dispositive motion deadline” set by Judge Ward, we will likely see motions for summary judgment filed by both sides. None of this should cause anyone to panic --- it is all very routine at this level of litigation.
Sorry to be so long-winded. Perhaps some of this will help.
I hope both of you are well. Best wishes.
---------------------------------------------
That is the end of the correspondence
GLTAL
MKendra, something that would take the place of a ring oscillator and how it tracks with the CPU to time its processing is not at this time economically feasible.
And it won't be for a long time. Long after the patents run out in 2015. I have a close friend/contact who is an EE (electrical engineer) and I have spoken with him about this on several occasions.
The variable speed ring oscillator is so fundamental, it somewhat is, as Turley says, like water.
The only worry items are invalidity and Higgins IMO. Hopefully we'll get some resolution on the Higgins issue soon.
GLTAL
Hi SGE,
I am more concerned with the timing of an MSJ. Not sure when that would happen. The following post illustrates my interest:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=23374420
GLTAL
Hunt, Cent and Air ...
Again, Cent, thanks for the DD on MSJs. I have asked a question to a "lawyer friend" of mine regarding MSJs and when they are usually filed, if there can be a "usual" time. This friend has a lot of experience regarding mediation also. Once I get a response from him I will be sure to post it to you guys.
We have already corresponded regarding mediation. Tomorrow I will post what he wrote. I think many understand the generalities of mediation and not to read too much into things.
FWIW
GLTAL
Nice to see you stop by, Hunt. eom
Thanks, Cent. I appreciate the DD. eom
Air, just figured a more relaxed posting schedule and forum would do me well. The people on this board are as knowledgable as any other place so why not. I have always like this board. Actually started out on this board about three years ago.
Certainly a very interesting time to be invested in this stock. Someone else stated, I believe, that there is a deadline of Oct 19 for all motions. I dont believe that is the final deadline b.c after checking the Pacer schedule, it appears there is a final motions deadline for Dec 12, 2007. I am not sure if that pertains to motions for summary judgement or not.
The reason why I am interested in these deadlines is b.c between the Oct 19 deadline and the Dec 12 deadline, Pretrial conferences take place as does jury selection.
I guess my question is better suited for any lawyers out there. Do motions for summary judgement normally take place before jury selection? Or can MSJs take place at any time until the last deadline after jury selection?
For everyone: Please remember that if we were to win an MSJ, there would still be a need for a jury to decide on damages, wilfulness, etc.
I think if normally MSJs are normally filed before jury selection and everything, things could heat up here pretty quick. I am going to try and do some DD on the topic. If I can't find anything, I will bother my lawyer friend.
GLTAL
Mediation...
Hey guys. I suppose if Mediation did take place at the end of September, we should see a Pacer soon. We should also see a Pacer regarding the Higgins issue.
I am just going to throw out some random thoughts.
I would prefer a ruling on the Higgins issue before a settlement if one were to take place. From what I have heard from a lawyer friend of mine, he believes the ruling will come down on our side but he did warn that nothing is ever certain in litigation. Probably repetitive for most here who already know this.
I believe all parties can agree to have further mediation sessions and I could easily see that happen. If both parties want further clarification on some of the motions before J Ward prior to agreeing to any settlement, then that would be a reason to meet again.
I keep thinking about how the USPTO used the Markman to initially reject the '584. I assume it will be more difficult for the USPTO to do the same as it pertains to the '336 and '148. All anyone should really care about is the '336, which is the bread winner of the group as probably everyone already knows.
I also keep thinking of a Marshall, Texas jury that will hear of the claim construction, hear about the 20 odd licenses which include very big names. Ofcourse if there is some smoking gun obviousness or invalidity contention that overpowers the positives, then I believe we would be in very good shape at trial. US companies versus Japanese companies with over 20 major global companies licensing patents. I like our odds but ofcourse anything can happen.
I get the feeling that the "upcoming" acquisition will be with a relatively small company. I don't have much experience as to how M&A works, I just hope we don't dilute too much if that is the case.
Enough rambling...Here is to a substantialy favorable settlement in Texas.
GLTAL
Pedrov,
I like your style. We could use you on Agora to tighten up that board. I agree with you 10000% on what you have said here today.
I really need to take a break from following these boards b.c the repetitious speculation is torturous.
Take it easy.
GLTAL
Just wanted to let you guys know that this is a far superior board. Maybe, at some point in the future, we could persuade the new CEO to claim InvestorsHub as another offical board site for PTSC. Far superior...
GLTAL
This is a far superior site. I really wish Agora members would come here. Agoracom is absolutely ridiculous...
GLTAL
Moxa,
Agreed. J3Arm can't simply reveal from "under the bed" a signed and dated document that contains the '336 concept and predates the original filing.
As you say, it has to be in the public domain, which leads back to why did all the others settle? Still a long road though and anything can happen.
I like my chances.
GLTAL
Moxa,
I don't think INTC tried to buy the mmp through TPL, I think INTC may have agreed to finance the deal in exchange for a license. That may be untrue also. It's possible TPL had 7 million to offer themselves.
Who knows? Unless someone has a document...
GLTAL
Nsomniyak
I see it as good news that SGI believes they need to advise their shareholders of our portfolio. On the other hand there are several references to IP risk.
I don't know how to interpret the filing. They seem to address every single IP threat, including the tiny 3 million amount from one company to the individual investor who probably could be bought out for less. IMO SGI only lists credible IP threats.
Here is to Alliacense scaring the bejesus out of SGI...cheers...
GLTAL
I hate to say it but it is possible PTSC could lose the case. That has to be understood as a possibility. I will be invested in the company and I am sure any notification would take place after hours and I would ride the pony down until I could get out.
I will not summarily dismiss this possibility. I can only point to the fact that there have been 11 licensees to date, and not all are considered nuisance value. We have a solid legal firm on our side in Townsend & Townsend & Crew. We are in one of the most favorable legal venues in the US of A for plaintiffs.
I like our chances...
No, Gabbyco, I figured I would give the ole college try to buyz. I wrote those questions half thinking nothing would be done with them, but I thought they made decent points, and it was worth the effort. That is the whole reason I used a dummy email...
When I attend the SHM next year I hope many of those questions will have already been addressed.
IAM, understood.
GLTAL
When you are finished putting the questions together post them for the board to see. FYI, I sent the questions using a dummy email account so I won't be viewing that account ever again...
Forget the email...here is what I have come up with so far...
buyz...
I suggest a few of the following:
Mr. Pohl, it is obvious that Sony received a significant discount in return for doing business with Intellasys' newly acquired Indigita corporation. Do you expect TPL/Intellasys will give further discounts to possible licensees for chip contracts? If so, will PTSC be the recipient of such deals once PTSC acquires a private company, as noted in your recent PRs?
Mr. Pohl, from a retail investors' perspective it is difficult to interpret the wording of some of PTSC's PRs. For example, TPL has stated that rates are increasing but the dollar amounts of the most recent deals show otherwise. Mr. Pohl, do you believe licensing rates are ramping up? Is it reasonable to assume that there could be as many as 20 to 30 discounted licensing spots on the MMP company roster? Also, Fujitsu and HP paid 30 odd million and 20 odd million respectively. Can you comment on those two companies compared to the most recent 6 companies (Seiko-Epson, Sony, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus and Kenwood) that have obtained licenses to use the MMP?
Mr. Pohl, do you believe there will be more companies this calendar year that will obtain licenses to use MMP tech?
Mr. Pohl, if you can comment, do you expect any significant events between now and the SHM that will be scheduled for early 2007?
Mr. Pohl, you have alluded to acquiring or merging with a private company. Do you believe 16 million is enough to purchase a successful company? (Possibly asking the Sony question again re: discounts in return for chip business. Quid Pro Quo, or whatever...)
Mr. Pohl, do you see a conflict of interest between TPL and prospective licensees? I ask because TPL has already cut one deal with Sony and is positioning itself to sell to more asian customers. These companies, according to the ubiquitous nature of the MMP, most likely infringe on that technology. What can you say to investors to assuage their fears regarding this issue?
I am sure I will think of more later...
GLTAL
I will send you an email. Thanks for your time, buy.
GLTAL
There is no way of knowing until the 10Q. What you say is certainly reasonable. It would be great if each J3 and Arm would have to pay 200 million each, half to PTSC. I can wait until the beginning of next May when the Markman, claim construction, hearing will happen. That is roughly 7 months away.
At that point we will have many of the dozens of companies signed and possibly reported.
GLTAL
Yes, most believe that there will be 0 revenue for the 4th quarter. Many have speculated that one reason they delayed the 10k was b.c there wasn't any rev for the 4th q. Another reason is it may have something to do with the court issue.
Anyhoot, GLTAL
Congratulations on your success thus far.
I promised a friend I would try and do some DD for him on VMDG.
I have gone to all the usual sites to try and get some basic info and I have found nothing.
What is the fully diluted share amount?
How much did VMDG pay the private company that held the mine?
What is the speculation as to why the private company didn't capitalize on this outstanding asset?
1,277,950 ounces of XAU @ say 550 USD per oz is about 702,872,500 million. Even when gold was trading around 320 in 2001 - 2002, that is still 350 million? Why didn the private company develop the mine? Why didn't the larger mining companies purchase this mine long ago since one survey was done back in 1983, pretty much during the 'Gold' boom where XAU went to 800 USD/oz.
I wouldn't feel comfortable investing in this stock without answers to the previous questions. Maybe someone can help me out. Thanks in advance.
GLTAL
What is the catch? Where does a tiny company like VMDG get the resources to purchase such a valuable, tangible asset?
That was one of the major points I took from the WSR transcript. He was basically reinforcing what we have already been doing for several months. I found it positive...
We shall know the revenue soon enough. I am still not convinced 10Q will be as high as everyone thinks. I hope I am wrong.
I agree, prepare for the worst and hope for the best.
OT: This site IMO is the best. It is fast and easy to navigate. I really don't understand why more people don't come here to post.
GLTAL
Mr. Smith is a pretty funny guy. That was a great blog and the See Y'all in Texas was a great article IMO.
I am hopeful the yearly and quarterly show we have repurchased a ton of shares, or we have repurchased almost all warrants from S&L.
GLTAL
That was the most pointless exchange I have ever read. The person who is right should be given a medal for educating. And that person was the one who said it WASN'T gap.
The "No Investor Left Behind Act". Educating investors one at a time.
LOL
GLTAL
IAMSAM, I wonder if Pohl's comment about Sony receiving the distinct discount, etc., means that Sony may have paid less than we expect considering they are already incorporating Intellasys tech in their products.
That was fast, no?
Wow...
I hear ya! Lets go! eom
"Perhaps a partnership with an accredited University preferably in California resulting in equal ownership of all patents that may follow."
This is what PTSC should absolutely do. If they can focus on more than one university, all the better. CalTech, MIT, U of Georgia, Stanford, etc. That would be huge IMO to atleast give growth prospects in the intermediate term.
Many, many companies do this in all scientific fields. I would like to see this.
As for M&A, as BaNoss has pointed out, this decision must be scrutinized carefully, and then rescrutinized to avoid a money pit.
Good points.
GLTAL
BaNoss, I think you are making excellent points about PTSC (Pohl, Turley and whoever else is advising) needing to make good decisions now.
A lot of people are canonizing David Pohl. I don't particularly know why. The same holds true for Turley. I understand that one a little better, but IMO as long as these guys have enough money to play with I don't think there will be any bonehead moves. The reason I say that is b.c both these guys are experienced business men. They are not CEOs and Techies who have led fortune 500 companies, but nevertheless they have enough experience IMO.
That being said I am not as concerned as you are regarding short term business decisions. I am concerned about the J3Arm issue. Once/If/When that is out of the way I will feel much, much better about PTSC's future. The MMP alone will push us to a certain level and then PTSC's ability to execute the business plan and gain investor confidence will take center stage for future growth. Depending on the PPS, I may or may not be in PTSC.
I honestly don't believe Pohl will be leading this company for more than a year or two. He is a lawyer and is not a techie. IMO PTSC will need a techie to run the show. Is that person Turley? Possibly. I agree that the other BOD seats should be filled by Tech industry experts, not lawyers, etc.
I would love to see PTSC start hiring engineers to develop inhouse IP. My guess would be that Turley and Semico are trying to find a company that already does this. PTSC will be an IP company comparable to ARM and RMBS. We might not see an RMBS share price, but...
Opposing viewpoints welcome.
GLTAL
Nice work, Sam! eom
Lastly, please do not call my last post subtle bashing. If I could predict the future with any degree of certainty, I wouldn't be posting here. I would be on my super yacht sailing the south pacific.
GLTAL
You guys certainly are paranoid. The NYTimes article says 78% of all patent cases are ruled in favor of plaintiffs...uhhhhhhhh...how is that bashing? That is most likely the single most important fact from that article.
"Patent cases are heard faster in Marshall than in many other courts. And while only a small number of cases make it to trial — roughly 5 percent — patent holders win 78 percent of the time, compared with an average of 59 percent nationwide, according to LegalMetric, a company that tracks patent litigation."
And only 5% percent actually make it to trial. The odds are certainly in our favor, but who here is a lawyer?. And predicting this stuff is risky. IMO we are certainly in better shape than before the Higgins Debacle, but it is still legal stuff. bla bla bla
GLTAL
Fair enough. I expect some people to interpret my posts as you did. A few points.
1. I work for a living and don't have time to day trade. Also, I would be scared chtless about missing the boat if I sold anything out right now and TPL/PTSC announce another deal.
2. Delay tactics are not stupid. They are part and parcel of everyday business strategy. Why pay today when you can pay tomorrow? That idea has been around for a long time.
3. One thing that I have learned is that nothing is for certain. Sedley posted a great article from the NYTimes. I believe we have atleast a 75% chance of winning and that is worth a bet anyday of the week and twice on Sunday. Especially since we have already licensed the MMP to multi-billion dollar companies. That combination is very persuasive, but I don't want to count any chickens before they hatch. The Higgins Debacle is a lesson learned and I try to remember that when I start to get overly confident about PTSC.
IMO PTSC will do well...I am bias b.c I am very long. Also, I am no lawyer and these issues are very complicated and there are a lot of smart people and money on both sides.
GLTAL
Interesting Ruling in Crawford, TX
Not saying this is going to happen to us b.c I don't believe the circumstances are similiar, but...the following ruling in Crawford shows that sometimes the preparation of a legal team's PICS are not done correctly. We need to get this legal garbage out of the way b.c it is impossible to predict the outcome on every motion...I hate to say it but at any moment Ward could rule against us in any motion and stop us, or set us back years b.c of some legal mishap. Just trying to stay grounded...
Anyhoot,
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://mcsmith.blogs.com/eastern_district_of_texas/2006/09/order_on_motion.html
Order on Motion to Amend Preliminary Infringement Contentions Granted in Part, Denied in Part
STMicroelectronics Inc v. Sandisk Corporation, Case 4:05-cv-00045-MHS-DDB Document 227 Filed 09/07/2006)
Judge: Don Bush
Holding: Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Preliminary Infringement Contentions GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
COMMENTS:
It's not clear at this stage whether Magistrate Judge Bush's order yesterday granting in part and denying in part the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend its PICS will be published, but it is worth a read for practitioners interested in another fact situation in which a judge has determined when a party's PICs can be amended, and especially on the issue of whether a party's prefiling investigation into which products it should have accused was adequate.
This is one of a pair of cases by STM against Sandisk. (In the first Judge Bush issued a report and recommendation that Sandisk's motion for summary judgment of noninfringement be granted. See http://EDTexweblog.com/2006/06/summary_judgmen.html - the R&R has been appealed to Judge Schell and is pending). Plaintiff STM sought leave to amend its PICs. It stated that when it served its preliminary contentions, its investigation of the scope of Sandisk’s infringement was ongoing, and that it expressly reserved its right to amend its disclosures. STM now sought to "clarify" its preliminary infringement contentions to identify with more particularity the products accused of infringing. It also sought to add more products in the same “Sandisk families” that were originally accused, claiming that the information necessary to allow it to accuse these products was previously unavailable to it, despite its diligence.
Judge Bush looked to see if there was the required "good cause" to amend under P.R. 3-7, noting (as have other ED judges) that the standard for good cause is found in the Fifth Circuit's four part test to determine whether a district court’s refusal to modify a scheduling order was an abuse of discretion as well as whether untimely motions to amend pleadings should be allowed. "Frustrated by the parties’ inability to agree on when information was readily known concerning the products STM seeks to add," Judge Bush wrote, "the Court entered an order on July 6, 2006, ordering each party to file affidavits under the penalty of perjury as to when information regarding particular products was available in the public domain or otherwise." See http://EDTexweblog.com/2006/07/counsel_ordered.html . This order issued after that information was provided to the Court, and permitted some products to be added, but not others, detailing why for each. In conclusion, Judge Bush offered a warning to practitioners, stating:
In considering the standard articulated by the Fifth Circuit, the Court finds that STM has failed to demonstrate good cause. The affidavits demonstrate that most all the products were readily available in the marketplace well prior to the September deadline (for STM's PICs). The Court finds that STM was not diligent in its investigation and the affidavit of Blumberg only supports this conclusion. To allow the amendment opens a flood gate of new products. Sandisk has sufficiently outlined the increased burden in assimilating and producing responsive documents that would be required. The Court finds that a continuance at the time of the requested amendment and certainly at this late date is not warranted. The parties who file and participate in these cases know the rules and should be aware that there is little room for unpreparedness. Although the parties were involved in other litigation, that is of little consequence.
"Buying other companies or assets is likely even worse. You would have to believe that this company or this management is in some unique position to be able to buy something at a price that no one else is willing to pay and then turn it into fine spun gold. This would require a major suspension of disbelief.
"
I disagree with the previous statement. There could be any # of companies that generate substantial revenue, say 100 million a year, that could be acquired. Their Net Income could be 10 million a year.
If Patriot were to buy come of these companies, maybe some that can incorporate II, you never know. The business world is incredibly diverse. You need money to play and it appears that PTSC is obtaining the first part. Lets see how wisely they spend their money. Let Turley look into his crystal ball an position PTSC for the future.
GLTAL
I believe the restated financials have been posted. I see no difference, but I can only read it at Yahoo. I don't have access to Edgar, and Nasdaq doesn't see the filing.
Hopefully everyone else can take a look.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=ptsce.ob
Several key pts in today's PR:
-The discount language was left out of the PR. IMO that is a good sign but doesn't guarantee anything.
-Momentum is certainly building. I assume there are other companies that have yet to be announced. This portfolio could be the single biggest threat to any large tech company. IMO their IP departments have already advised management of the MMP, or will be doing so soon.
-More pressure on the J3(Matsushita, Fujitsu, JVC, Panasonic and NEC). If they haven't already settled, they probably will soon. They might be waiting for the court to schedule something so they can defer payments. My speculation.
-The PR was released after the close, so IMO PTSC will announce tomorrow and not torpedo prospective PTSC investors with a solid PR followed by a discounted PR. I am happy the 24 hour lag between PRs is over.
The share repurchase plan IMO is the most important thing short term. I think they need to use as much cash as possible to buy back as many shares as possible at this price. In two years I would like to see the float cut to 200 million shares. Not sure if that is possible considering PTSC would have to buy 160 million shares. If the price stays where it is, two years is possible, but the price probably won't stay here, so 200 million in 5 or 6 years is more probable.
Anyhoot, GLTAL
I haven't posted on this board since before the Higgins Debacle. Looks like Patriot is in a good position. It wouldn't surprise me to hear of a J3 settlement soon. It has been 2 1/2 months since there was a legitimate filing on the E. Texas docket and one could surmise that TPL/PTSC will follow the same PR pattern as before; announce the small company first (Casio) and then announce the big fish (Fujitsu). This time around it would be Sony and then the J3(Matsushita, Toshiba, JVC, Panasonic and NEC).
Thos two announcements could be anywhere from 180 million (30 million each) to 600 million (100 million) each. All in MO. Very doubtful it will be on the high end, but one can hope.
This board will probably begin to pickup over the next months.
GLTAL
Hi 2b!
It has been a while, 2B.
Question for you: Can you explain to me what happened to Sony re: litigation?
Are they included on the Cali docket? B.c ppl over at agora say they aren't included in the Texas docket.
Please let me know.
Thanks.
Hey Power,
What do you think is the biggest problem with CytRX?
I ask b.c I can't see anything besides financing operations. I still think the entire industry is undervalued and I hope that will change this year with more positive clinical results.
Thanks for the welcome and I am sure we will be conversing and commenting on future events.
Ease