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.
Really nice post. I agree completely. (Except I have never made the statement that Nunchi does not exist - I have, however, opined that we will never see it - yes, an opinion, which I have often stated is an opinion.)
The only "facts" are that EDIG has done a video demo to shareholders and made statements about meetings with prospects. It can't be "proven" that Nunchi actually exists, nor can it be proven that it does not.
So, again, the only statement I take issue with is when someone says "the 'tech' exists." That is an unknown. EDIG says it exists, that is known. In my opinion, the statement "the 'tech' exists in my opinion" is a fair statement.
Again, that's all I take issue with. To say that it definitely exists, that we are definitely meeting with prospects, etc., is conjecture based solely on a video demo and Fred's/EDIG's statements.
LL
Do you have personal knowledge that the "tech" exists? Do you have personal knowledge that prospects have seen live demos?
All you or anyone else knows is that you saw a video, that applications for patents have been filed, and that Fred and EDIG have made certain statements that they are making progress and other statements that they have had meetings. In my world that does not mean much of anything. And if I had seen a video demo I would feel the same way I do now. I saw Avatar but I don't believe flying Pteradactyls exist.
I think it's nice that the PPS is edging up but I don't know what is driving it. What I do know is that if I showed a video demo of my company's proprietary software to a prospect, told them we had patents pending, and then said "trust me, the "tech" exists", they'd assume I was joking with them. Call me crazy, but only when I see some real world evidence of Nonechi will I think it exists - and I hope you get to remind me how wrong I am at some point.
LL
In the software world, when you see a demo, but don't see the "tech" in action in a real, commercial environment, you can't offer any proof the "tech" exists. Hence the term vaporware.
I'm interested in what forms the basis for your "knowledge" that the "tech" exists. To my knowledge it has not been seen anywhere but this video demo. In my software world this would not pass muster for "existing."
LL
We'll see what nunchi is or isn't. You can't talk about like it exists - all you know is what you've seen on a video presentation some time ago. There is no evidence elsewhere that any of the "features" you discuss actually exist.
When a partner or produxt comes to market there will be evidence of its existence, not before.
Ll
Joe, i thought accumulation was happening when millions of shares traded daily at .33 for several weeks. We'll see.
LL
Can't disagree. Having been fooled many times before it will take a lot of "proof" to convince me. Hope things continue to improve.
LL
Still only $30k in trades but higher every day. If this were the old days I'd say someone is accumulating - but I am older and jaded now. Nonetheless a pleasant change.
LL
Coyote,
Mostly sells or buys? Seems like would have to be buys for PPS to continue to inch upward.
LL
Joe, definitely heading in the right direction both in PPS and volume. I'm still a doubter.
LL
That's nice. My topic is about the shares I own and their cost basis.
LL
The other point is that there have only been $17k worth of trades thus far today. Much different from millions of shares at dollars per share. Let's see if both volume and PPS continues to grow.
LL
I'm just giving you a hard time. I don't want you to post your average cost per share. I'm just making my heavy-handed point that you were indeed correct that it was going to go up from there (and it was a bold move to buy there) but I don't think it's going to amount to a major change in the overall investment success.
If you are happy then I am happy. In fact, I wish all the shareholders could be winners, but as you know I think - well, I don't need to say what I think do I? I said it ad nauseum.
I would be very surprised if the shares go over a million though I am already surprised that they are over 400k. But that's still less than $20k traded. If it were 400k shares at 5 or 6 bucks, that's a different story.
Best wishes Joe.
LL
Congrats Joe. Is that your average cost basis for all your shares? If not, what is?
I'm less underwater on the shares I bought in the .40's than the shares I bought at about $1.50.
LL
I'd still like to see the legally binding definition of "handling" - I never used that phrase in a contractual manner.
LL
By the way, what do people think of Fred's obviously intentionally misleading statement that DM was still "handling" EDIG's litigation a mere month before they formally ended their association. They obviously knew at the time this was in the works andd EDIG was scrambling to find a new firm to keep the carrot alive.
LL
Oh yeah - Nunchi - In addition to predicting DM would no longer be working for EDIG I predicted we would never hear of Nunchi in the marketplace and no one would license it. I'm standing by the second now that the first has come to pass.
LL
Guess they will have to fire those 400 lawyers they hired to work on EDIG - maybe that Atlanta lawyer also.
LL
Good point. Those are likely pass-through fees.
LL
Oh, I see what you are talking about. The post about boutiques is from chicago magazine. They are talking about firms like Bartlitt Beck, a chicago litigation boutique (which I have visited by the way, and whose e-discovery counsel I know) which has about 90 attorneys. They are not talking about 3 person firms in San Diego.
LL
100% correct. Now they are going to spend the last of their money with this local firms, slowly lowering their financial reserves, while setting up shop in another of woody's stack-selling companies or looking for other jobs.
Does anyone wonder now why RP left when he did?
If you don't mind destroying people's dreams and bank accounts then he is a hell of an operator.
LL
And also the news of the substitution of the new "boutique" law firm for DM was also greeting witha buying frenzy of about $6,000 of shares traded. Look like EDIG is really going places.
LL
Not sure what Brainz.com is but I AM sure what law.com is. Though this article is three years old it accurately describes a boutique litigation firm. If I recall it sizes them from 11 attorneys to 96. We are currently doing a matter with one which is ranked in the top 3 for the last 3 yearsand is listed at the bottom. Note how the decription differs from yours.
Whatever this firm is that EDIG has hired is a boutique according to their own description and website. They are also in San Diego and most likely all EDIG could afford. Unless they went inhouse with Cucomelli LOL. They are saying "boutique" instead of small.
Ultimately the only thing that matters is whether revenue flows regularly to EDIG, which I have been saying for about 5 years now, but I doubt seriously you can find this new "boutique" firm of EDIG's listed on any site as a recognized firm of importancce.
From Law.com:
Top Litigation Boutiques of the Year
Practicing law at a litigation boutique is nothing like working at a big firm. Boutique lawyers say it's much better
The American Lawyer
January 5, 2009
¦Litigation Boutique of the Year Winner: Bartlit Beck
On the day that Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck, Untereiner & Sauber opened its doors, name partner Lawrence Robbins took special note of a package of yellow Post-it Notes. Robbins and three of his fellow founders had left the safety and security of Mayer Brown partnerships to venture out on their own, and there had been a few misgivings. But as he stood in the supply room amid the new firm's pens, notepads and Post-its, Robbins thought to himself: "These are my yellow sticky notes. This is my firm." It was a feeling of ownership, he says, that he'd never had before.
Practicing at a litigation boutique is different from practicing at an Am Law 200 firm. To be clear: We are not referring to the quality of the boutiques' cases or the level of their advocacy. The firms we considered for Best Litigation Boutique honors -- which ranged in size from 11 to 96 lawyers --are involved in some of the highest-profile, highest-stake cases in the country, in both the civil and criminal arenas. Their clients are banks, accounting firms, airlines, energy companies, tobacco and pharmaceutical giants, hedge funds -- a list that any big firm might aspire to.
Instead, where they diverge from the big firms is in their culture, a word worn to banality in the recruiting brochures of The Am Law 200. At litigation boutiques, culture is not a cliche. It's Gibbs & Bruns's lockstep compensation, Bredhoff & Kaiser's determination not to handle management-side labor work, Wallace King Domike & Reiskin's deep commitment to a diverse partnership. Would a big firm refuse to bill by the hour or hire laterals? Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott does. How about letting associates vote on whether to take a contingency-fee case, as Susman Godfrey does; or paying five-figure bonuses to staff members when the firm has a good year, which is Robbins, Russell's policy?
The clients of these firms told us that the boutiques, in the main, deliver what they promise: They are nimble, efficient, flexible and smart. They're also often a lot less expensive than their big-firm competitors -- a quality that clients now appreciate more than ever. Several boutiques even told us that they turned away work in the last year. How many big firms can say the same?
RELATED ARTICLE: WINNING FIRM
Litigation Boutique of the Year Winner: Bartlit Beck
No hourly fees, no leverage, no laterals. And Bartlit Beck's lawyers are always prepared to go to trial. The firm's model is unique -- and its results are, too
David Bario
The American Lawyer
More than any of the other litigation boutiques we considered, Bartlit Beck stood out for the sheer breadth and magnitude of its trial work. In the last two years, its attorneys tried more than 15 cases to verdict in at least 10 states -- and they prevailed in all but three. In areas as diverse as mass torts, securities, antitrust and intellectual property, the firm's wins reverberated throughout the industries involved.
I thought about trying but agree it would have been hard. However, someone is in the process of being able to do it - no doubt Polis or his ilk.
LL
Kool, can you cite a large matter where these guys were sole counsel for the Plaintiff(s) where they had a result large enough to move the EDIG share price? I couldn't find one but perhaps i'm not as good as I was when i clerked for W.D. TX. I'm happy to be wrong.
Granted, they couldn't do worse than DM overall, but I believe that is a function of the fact that eDIg's patents are not worth much, if anything. Neither is Nunchi.
LL
Never, agreed. They knew DM was never going to do anything else, they talked with them, they wrote the requisite document.
At least one posster understands thie from another board.
"Just my opinion but I see that letter as just a formality. I can't imagine that DM and eDig didn't have a conversation about this after the relationship they have had for a number of years. Personally I don't read into that we dumped them or vice versa. Again, just my opinion."
A final comment - it was what they say about themselves - just like what edig says about themselves.
And the cases they cite as having been involved in _ it appears at first blush that there were other and larger firms involved s well, so the extent of their role is not known. If you look at a reputable law firm the attorneys cite specifically the role they played and the type and size of matters in which they were involved.
I say more EDIG BS.
LL
Uhhm , yeah. We may be in a slightly different league than the case you were doing. Remember all the commentary about Sze's wide-ranging expertise? And he still got his ass kicked.
Real IP litigation firms dont work part time, and they DO often have IP degrees as well as law degrees. This Handal group is more like the guy who represented you.
No one will admit it but it is a HUGE admission on EDIG's part that they can't convince anyone to take their case. Remember they met with the heavy hitters all up and down the east coast. I talked with Will about who they met with. And it's great that people "feel good." They've been "feeling good" for some time. That has nothing to do with winning in court.
By the way, weren't you posting regularly about how Fred said DM was still handling litigation? Don't you think that was dishonest since he knew by that time they were going to change?
LL
That is a specious argument. Look at the credentials of the people from DM who were working on EDIG. Now compare those to this new firm. And DM was not even a highly ranked IP Litigation firm.
LL
They are a three person law firm who went to Southwestern school of law, San Diego Law School and Texas Tech law school. No JD, EE members of the firm. Let's get real - they are all EDIG could afford. And no one wants to represent EDIG contingency based any more.
LL
Joe,
I have a great deal of personal respect for you as I think you know. We have a lot in common. You are probably just more "evolved" than I am LOL.
I personally am indignant at people who lie and take advantage of others - this has nothing to do with me. I would love to have my money back, but I won't get it. But I see people who don't understand law, know nothing about IT, and who have not witnessed EDIG's shenannigans up close and personal, and who keep hoping against hope that they are going to make money or at least be made whole.
A month ago Fred told everyone that DM was still "handling" our litigation. I posted that this statement was total BS and that DM would never darken EDIG's door again. We have heard nothing about Nunchi and we never will - take that to the bank.
I have always operated at the highest level of integrity in my business - EDIG does not - they get as close as they can to the line of what is honest and what is not, and cross that line on a regular basis. As Reagan said "there they go again." This is total misrepresentation and always has been. I post for those who are still in pie in the sky world and who deserve to have their voices heard.
Best wishes to you - I hope we get to meet in person some day.
Bill
DM did not get the boot - they resigned. There was no more money for them to make on contingency fee nuisance settlements.
LL
No offense, but I have been saying since the last round of litigation ended with no effort to appeal or otherwise combat the bad markman, which is still the law re EDIG's patents, that we would never hear from DM again. I've been pounding this drum for a year - and now the faithful will be telling us this is GODD news, EDIG gets to pay up front, these guys have probably never won a big case like we seek to win, and they certainly don't have the resources to foot with the big law firms, but it is good news.
LL
We have a three person law firm representing a 7 person company. This is big, really big.
LL
EDIG has no viable business. I see some other boards have descended into fantasy with discussions about some other company buying EDIG. Who would buy a seven person "company" with no revenue prospects?
LL
Obviously shareprice and volume have nothing to do with the enherent value of the stock or the prospects of the company. At least to some extent.
LL
This is starting to remind me, on a smaller scale, of the time when high volumes of shares traded at .33 for two weeks.
LL
Good luck Tim. Interesting how when the big boys want to sell they can keep the PPS up a few cents. Hope you made some money.
LL
Ooops. I forgot "in my opinion."
And yeah, I know, write him and ask him myself. Only he doesn't have an EDIG email address, he is the full time GC for Simplenet.com, and practices law out of his house somewhere near San Diego.
LL
I see the new iPhone is out. Has anyone asked Cocumelli which part of this is supposed to be pertinent to EDIG - or of interest to EDIG - or whatever it was that we were supposed to be satisfied or happy about?
LOL. What a bunch of shysters.
LL