Yup. once "traders" who are looking for a fast buck (literally) but willing to settle for quite a bit less are replaced by investors who are looking for $1.50 with an eye to quite a bit more, it shouldn't be hard to move to a $1.50--$2 range ;)

OK--i finished reading the opinion.
Looks like the judge was not in any way disposed against PRZM for their damages claim, KOmani.
Also looks like the logical conclusion for remaining defendants on these patents will be to settle with PRZM rather than taking their chances against the precedent of 2 substantial settlements.
Meanwhile, I'm assuming that this was written so tightly that Sprint cannot appeal En Banc or to the Supremes--but please correct me if i'm wrong about that. So even after the latest dilution based on the loan, I'm looking at PRZM trading at quite a bit under 50% of their net cash position after payments to the original Prism entity (no taxes due on the settlement as they're protected by the NOL's and a lot more to come there also). With considerable prospects ahead for more settlements on these patents, plus a war chect to enforce the other patents. So while the company is worth $1.50 to $2 based on its cash I still think a $3 valuation is totally reasonable based on go forward opportunity. I'd say HOLD.

Good outcome.
Well done for sticking with this.
I'm still reading the judge's extensive ruling.
But so far, it essentially expresses what he said at the trial itself, right down to the skepticism about Sprint's lawyers wanting the lower PRZM settlements to be admissible to the jury but not the higher AT&T settlement....& the lack of relevance of Rude vs Wescott from 1889!
I think that bodes well for the remaining cases which are still currently being valued at $0 in the stock price. Lots of willing sellers today & perhaps ongoing this week as so many people felt trapped in the stock as they waited. But I think PRZM is an easy double from 75c here between now and the end of the year, and still stand by my valuation of $2 at some point this year once the stock is back in strong hands again!

File this under interesting albeit irrelevant, perhaps, but Sprint just won $139.8 million in damages from Time Warner Cable in a 2011 lawsuit decided on Friday. The jury determined TWC wilfully infringed Sprint's digital voice phone patents which means that the judge may decide to triple the award....
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-03/sprint-wins-139-8-million-in-time-warner-cable-patent-trial

Indeed. Thought maybe trading had been suspended today. Looks like it just stopped of its own accord--& actually looking more closely 66 cents worth have in fact traded today at $0.33?!

Indeed--perhaps also explains why Dennis Chookaszian was accumulating if had knowledge of the other buyer or a connection with him from discussing PRZM as an investment.
Perhaps an indication that there is insider knowledge of some significant value in PRZM--perhaps beyond the net $2/share I am seeing, if the company defeats Sprint's appeal.
Separately I have read ludicrous comments about PRZM short interest, but checking online it appears that it is currently only 3400 shares--or do you believe there may be some unfiled naked shorting?

I guess that was my question also in the previous post.
Then again, if the patent is licensed by RSA (is it?) I'm also wondering if they can now renegotiate?!

Interesting--thanks.
Hard for my tiny brain to see how claim 24 is monetizable if the whole of the rest of the patent is completely invalidated.
After heavy lobbying from big tech, there was a distinct trend during the previous political regime, as you know, to invalidate a lot more patents than usual for being obvious. I'm not sure if that will continue, however as new judges are appointed?
Hard for me to tell whether the Glazer patent is worth anything or not.... what do you think?

yup--well aware of that -- but ONE of the two findings against przm WAS overturned.
which appears to leave one of their Glazer patent claims (#24) affirmed.
so I'm wondering if that can be monetized?!
Do you know what that claim includes?

Actually I was wrong--the Glazer Patent is one of the old Internet Patents Corporation patents.
http://insweb.client.shareholder.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1437749-15-17041
Still dont know the answers to my other qu's re the surviving claim #24 though!

Hah.
I think I have enough PRZM shares for the moment--would be more interested in adding in the lower .20s than the lower .30's!
What did you make of the PRZM filing today re the Glazer Patent?
Granted CMB2014-00100 has been thrown out, even tho IPR2014-00475 is affirmed, does this mean that claim 24 of the Glazer Patent now still stands as valid and patentable--and, if so, is that still the basis for ongoing legislation against US Bank and others?
I don't know a lot about the Glazer Patent except that it relates to image recognition & website authentication in online banking. I think it was owned by the Prism entity purchased in 2015/16, rather than the original Internet Patents Corp. Do you know more about it or if there's anything left there to monetize?

Yeah--can see it's possible to put orders in, inside the spread.
Though those orders will not be be displayed, right?
So only the MMs can see them I assume?

Hahahahaha.
That 5 million share bid is an offer to buy half the company on the open market ;)
Can't see it on my etrade "montage" but hilarious that it's out there.
I do actually believe the patents have some value if they lose the appeal.
Tho' they'd need a capital infusion which would further dilute shareholders.
Do you know whether it is possible to trade with another investor inside the spread? or not?
ie was that trade at 39c an investor trading with a market maker?
Or an investor trading with another investor, with no MM spread capture?

Gotcha. Thanks.
My broker (E*Trade) sometimes shows the 9.30am bid/ask & sometimes shows 0/0.
When they do show the .30/.45 bid ask they indicate that 0 shares have traded.
Are there no shares trading because the OTCQB market makers won't "reveal" investors' bids and asks that are inside the spread? So investors can ONLY buy at .30 or sell at .45?
I guess shorts will get totally slaughtered now if there is a favorable decision!
Likely their brokers will force them to cover very quickly, at whatever price the market makers choose to set.
So the downside for shorts is much greater than the downside for longs ;)

Thanks KOmani and Renee.
Seeing a bid/ask now at http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/PRZM/quote
It says it's real time but the print for the latest bid-ask is 9.30am.
Is there an new otcqb ticker symbol for the stock do you know.
I do have real time quotes at my brokerage account & easier to monitor there I think!

Thanks.
Not seeing a bid-ask at OTC url -- probably because I can't figure out the new ticker symbol, and cant find it online.
Any ideas?

Well that sounded gloomy ;(
but i guess it's what current stock price is telling you ;)

Just wondering (may be wishful thinking) but is there a scenario where the delay is occurring because the judge has encouraged S and PRZM to have meaningful talks. Or would that have had to be disclosed immediately? Am guessing the latter but just asking....

Yes enjoying these filngs.
Encouraging to see that one insider (who now has 450k+ shares) is singlehandedly supporting the stock in the run up to the court's decision!

PRZM suddenly dumped down on no volume--someone was anxious to sell 100K shares? Didnt appear to be any news...

Great.
Meanwhile DENNIS CHOOKASZIAN continues to load up:
http://ir.przmgroup.com/secfiling.cfm?filingid=1437749-17-1852&CIK=1077370
he now owns ~ 0.33% of the company.

Agree that hack-on may come across as greedy.
But shouldn't actually affect end result should it?
Also there has been a lot of bad behaviour lately by big companies abusing patents belonging to small ones and then trying to starve them into submission with higher than expected legal costs by delaying and appealing until bankruptcy becomes the most likely outcome.
So there is room for judges to give more punitive awards/be more receptive to hack-ons/

PS: I missed that PR release on friday--was it after hours??
Looks like there are some PRZM stockholders who don't want to own a pink sheet stock.
That could be a buying opportunity. Cynically makes me wonder if we shall see a dump down, then some insider buying, then a favourable result, then a return to NASDAQ listing. But if that happens I'm sure it will be completely coincidental ;)

Stock will get harder to trade.
Day traders will move on.
May not be a bad thing.
If they lose the case it makes very little difference.
If they win it, they will likely re-list anyway....

Hi KOmani:
I still have just over 60,000 shares.
Not a big deal in my account. I still see it as a lottery tkt.
There doesn't seem to me to be any rhyme or reason how long these things take.
I have seen it suggested that the longer it drags on the less well it tends to work out for the patent owner.
But i haven't seen any data on that.

So i still feel the same way i felt listening to the oral arguments
ie that that the judge seemed disposed towards PRZM....
I also still think there's more to PRZM that this $30m.
& a great opportunity to go after Verizon for a settlement if they win!

Exactly--some people (ie those who actually read the filings) are trying to explain this while others are proclaiming (eg on stocktwits) that due to an immediate r/s the sky is falling and PRZM is going to lose 90% of its market cap. The stock remains a lottery ticket and WILL lose market cap without the sprint settlement money--but it will also increase in value 5-10 fold if the money is paid. And neither of those binary valuation outcomes has anything to do with the r/s, other than that it will happen if PRZM loses and wont happen if PRZM wins, as you so clearly point out!

Not quite sure what to make of the enormity of PRZM director d. chookaszian buying a whopping $2,700 worth of stock in the company. But nice to see he got it at a decent price: 28 cents.

interesting albeit rather expensive way for $PRZM to raise $1/2 a million:
ir.przmgroup.com/secfiling.cfm?filingid=1437749-16-43779
lender is clearly confident about przm future prospects....
(you'll need to cut & paste the entire url above-- or go to edgar for latest filing).

hahaha. not sure about pluto but $2 would be acceptable.
then again maybe the delay is because the judge is pondering how punitive he can be towards sprint re damages due to a frivolous appeal ;)

10x perhaps?
$300 million total award??

;)
yeah that makes sense.
"follow me" likes to remind stocktwits posters that he is the moderator of this ihub board.
tho it would seem that i stepped over the line with a couple of posts i made in which i asked him if he had read the sec filings or had any thoughts on WHY the stock was worth $xx. they were deleted.

separately, stocktwits is as you say full of hopeful chartists & exhausted boosters.
i do agree with you that technical analysis is ludicrous for a stock that's in a binary valuation moment like PRZM at this time.

my instinct funnily enough is that a really really long delay could potentially favour PRZM, as the political regime for the past 8 years has strongly encouraged the legal system to favour giant companies in patent disputes.
i'm especially thinking of VRNG (now FH) vs GOOG tho there were many such instances.
whereas it's less clear that pattern will persist going forward.....

Duh. I am an idiot. Guess I was reading it as 2016 as that's what I wanted to hear!
Nevertheless it WAS the same judge who adjudicated the verbal arguments, correct?
And he continued to point out on 12/8 that Sprint's arguments were without merit, so that's all a good sign.
However that there appears to be more nervous selling than would be justified by the audio mp3 of the hearing and the publicly available information.
Still a lottery ticket though I don't think I agree that the people placing their bets lately have any inside information. Hope I am correct--it's never good to see price drifting this much ahead of a binary event ;(
Though i honestly don't agree with you KOmani that 135,000 shares (approx $40 grand's worth of stock) is disturbingly high volume. If real news was starting to leak out we'd see 20 to 30 times that volume, even ahead of an sec filing.....

the date on the article is December 9th 2016.
but am i misreading it--is it not referring to the judge's response to the verbal arguments, but rather to some prior appeal?
"Law360, New York (December 9, 2015, 4:18 PM EST) -- A Nebraska federal judge on Wednesday denied a Sprint Corp. unit's request for a new trial in a dispute over patented network authentication technology, leaving in place a $30 million win for patent holding company Prism Technologies LLC.

U.S. District Judge Lyle E. Strom in a brief order rejected various arguments from Sprint Spectrum LP, which does business as Sprint PCS, and said he couldn’t find any blatant errors that would warrant a new trial."

I get that the court has protocols but it's so weird to me that Sprint's arguments have already been rejected by the judge who has already denied Sprint's request for a new trial and confirmed the original trial result....
and yet PRZM didn't win yet? Doesn't the reported decision represent the judge's conclusion about the oral arguments? What else does he need to decide?
https://www.law360.com/articles/736105

That bad? Would it really be enough to lose the case & force a retrial. That seems like a waste of taxpayer money. Why wouldn't the judge just state that Sprint appeal and PRZM counter appeal are dismissed and send everyone home.

Agreed. I have stated many times on this board that PRZM is a lottery ticket with a good risk reward ratio.
I thought that the odds got a little better after I listened to the cafc mp3
But it's still a lottery ticket. If Sprint wins & the case is dismissed there will still be some value to the other patents, but as the company has run out of money, the BEST case for shareholders at that point will be massive dilution to raise funds to pursue those legal cases. And of course the ultimate worst case will most certainly be zero--that's the binary investing world of NPE's...

Yup--that's what I heard on the cafc mp3 recording also.
Any other result than a confirmation of the $30 million award (+interest) would be very surprising.
But then the price of PRZM stock is certainly very surprising also.
They're likely about to receive about $21 million (after payments to the former entity:
100% of the first $16.5 million, 30% of the next $49.5m, 100% thereafter)
There's no tax due on the money as they have NOLS up the wazoo.
And yet PRZM is valued at $4 million at .40c a share.
makes no sense to me...

Let's hope you'te right KOmani.
I listened to the mp3 of the verbal arguments as soon as i saw it on cafc.
And bought a bit more przm after hours as a result.
The judge really did seem to be telling Sprint they couldn't have it both ways.
And their dusty old 1899 "precedent" didn't seem to be setting the world on fire ;)
I don't know whether it's a genuine short position or just profit-taking
This stock must be hard to short, no?
Anyway adding at 53c on thursday evening made me look more greedy than smart.
Luckily just added 10% to a position that averaged ~30c.
But averaging down has worked better so far on this stock than averaging up, haha

Very interesting KOmani--i'm assuming this one is non-precedential (ie faster)--despite defendants complaints about plaintiffs mentioning the at&t settlement?

Thanks KOmani. Makes sense.
Court results still make this a lottery ticket, tho I still like the mp3 of the oral arguments.
Clearly there's some profit taking today by the peeps who made money yesterday.
Just profit taking imho--this case is too small for insider info to be leaking out.
What's your opinion?

What were your thoughts on the caf mp3 of the oral arguments, follow_me
as always i'm curious to know how you reached your conclusions.
& whether you caught any legal nuances i may have missed...
also do you have any analytical basis for your $4 estimate?
or is it more of a feeling you have that this must be true?