Your kidding me right? "bait out one of the last remaining sellers."
????

15:51:02 0.0475 413,000 SELL. S-E-L-L.
WTH is selling 413,000 before a supposed major announcement???

Concur with LS. Rat is in the house.

My Etrade is showing a 415K share dump at 3:51. that would actually reinforce what LS smells.

We will see. Im riding it for now.

So, its game time. Bring on the announcement so the rest of us can see what the excitement is about.

Some people are privy to the announcement already. As long as they are buying, that tells me its a good announcement.

Using parallel phraseology from a paid supporter of MMRGlobal, in recent article: "Runaway Bride… Despite Filing, Walgreens and MMR Global Settlement Still Likely" By Waco Hoover, CEO, Institute for Health Technology Transformation, February 25, 2014....

I would say, in my opinion, not only is there a high probability Waco Hoover's article is full of $#!+; but it actually has proven itself to be just that.
Ouch to him if he was fed that specific info about the "licensing" and the "next day/announced at Himss" tidbits in order to draw such a conclusion as "high probability." Hopefully he got paid to write that article and that eases the smarting, but that wont help the further loss of his credibility.

So we have come to our first deadline indicator (whether the announcement would occur in that obvious pump put out by Waco- it did not).
Next indicator is Wednesday to confirm whether MMRGlobal's FB post on "licensing deals being completed at the show" is also BS.

http://ihealthtran.com/wordpress/2014/02/runaway-bride-despite-filing-walgreens-and-mmr-global-settlement-still-likely/

The potential of a champion race horse that consistently undermines that potential by crapping where it eats.
So frustrating.

However, with the huge spike in volume, someone knows something. Game is rigged type stuff because there is no announcement from the company yet.

2,145,958 buys, 620,731 sells. Something is up.
http://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=trades&symbol=MMRF

Update:
Checked Pacer and LosAngelas Supct. Nothing new posted for IP or SCM cases respectively.
Nothing on MMRGLobal FB
Nothing posted on SEC site for MMR.
Nothing on MMR Twitter

Im talking about the WACO HOOVER fed and/or prophesized settlement and licensing agreement announcement that was supposed to be finalized yesterday and announced this week at HIMSS.
HIMSS conference is over.

And based on yesterdays FB post, also looking for more announcements on all the "licensing agreements BEING completed at the show!!!"

Again, the show is over.

Here is the HIMSS 2014 CLOSING REMARKS. That means the show is over. A bit more volume than I would expect with my previous guess- that being a promo. I havnt seen anything on the HIMSS board about MMR announcing settlement agreement, but I bet its coming out.

http://www.himssconference.org/GenInfo/NewsDetail.aspx?ItemNumber=28638

Nothing on MMRGLobal FB page either

No news that I can find out of HIMSS yet, so Im thinking its a promo across the stockboards.

I think its from this feed I am picking up across stock boards.
I cant find the original post though, just this piece of it:

I'd have to look at what the SEC considers a "material definitive agreement." For past licensing agreements, 8k was filed.
Regards "Being" completed, that was my point on how in the past BL has wiggled out of accountability using such intentionally vague terms.

Because actual completion is ambiguous, not conclusive. ie.. how long does being completed take to actual completion and therefore trigger the 8k four day business clock till filing?
Point being, if we don't see anything by next Wednesday we certainly know that they were not completed at HIMSS.

Whose attention is shifting?
Sure its a great cause - Operation Mend - truly does outstanding work for our veterans....
BUT, it has nothing to do with investor expectations of BL or MMRF.
Particularly when we have a new rash of fluff to track for its truthfullness-
1- Via MMRF pumper - Waco Hoover and his Institution. High probability agreement reached "next day"(which was yesterday) for WAG Settlement and "licensing" agreement "to be announced at HIMSS 14."
2- "Licensing deals being completed at HIMSS 14" on FB yesterday.

This is the two deadlines MMRF investors should be focused on IMO, based on limited open source information otherwise.
1- COB for HIMSS 14 today- if no "announcement" we know Waco Hoover and his institute, or the "person" that fed him that info, was full of $#!+, which still makes Hoover full of it too.
2- Wednesday next week, if we see no 8K on the completed licensing agreements at HIMSS (which is 4 business day ticker on SEC filing for 8K) we know that FB post was BS as well.
Otherwise, we are still in same boat.
That being, court filings that indicate a settlement agreement being drafted while parties none-the-less are keeping court deadlines in filing litigation docs until that agreement is finalized.

Walgreen's assigned patent

I wonder if any part of the pending settlement has a partnership in joining each others pieces of the HiT patent pie for future enforcement.

http://www.4-traders.com/WALGREEN-COMPANY-14843/news/Walgreen-Company--Walgreen-Assigned-Patent-18002594/

Going to have to disagree with you S7.

Im taking it for exactly what the text says. Its specificity is blatant.
http://ihealthtran.com/wordpress/2014/02/runaway-bride-despite-filing-walgreens-and-mmr-global-settlement-still-likely/

And this...."In case you missed us at ?#?HIMSS? read the special edition of "MMRGlobal Today" and be sure to continue following us on Facebook for news about licensing deals being completed at the show! For your copy of MMRGlobal Today, email us at info@mmrmail.com." https://www.facebook.com/MMRGlobal/posts/718609148179597
Did everyone catch that? More importantly did any one note the term "BEING" used before "Completed."???
If we don't see any 8K filings by Wednesday (4 day business day clock for material definitive agreement) of next week we know the above FB statement was Bull$#!+. http://www.sec.gov/answers/form8k.htm

Orlando/HIMSS is on Eastern Time. Under three market hours left in this "next day."
HIMSS schedule has events going up to 10pm tonight. As we get closer to 10pm there is a "high probability" that an article writer regrets biting on BS tidbits fed to him and saying "next day."
Ouch, been there before.
http://www.himssconference.org/geninfo/content.aspx?ItemNumber=22936&navItemNumber=22927

If its announced on the HIMSS 2014 news and events announcement page, here is the link so we can all track it on this "next day"
http://www.himssconference.org/GenInfo/NewsList.aspx?navItemNumber=22303

Good thing for WAG to settle with MMR, WAG now has another Plaintiff who dropped a patent infringement claim on them yesterday in US District court in Texas.
edekka v. Wallgreen
Over edekka's patent: 6,266,674 Hejna patent- “Random Access Information Retrieval Utilizing User-Defined Labels,”
Seems WAG has been added to their list of website retailers (including Home Depot) who have been infringing on the "add to shopping cart" function owned by Edekka.

http://news.priorsmart.com/edekka-v-walgreen-l9Y5/#Complaint

https://www.google.com/patents/US6266674

MY belief in what to expect is based on what a reasonable person, with reasonable brains, can find open source using very precise DD methods. This leads you to no more specificity than "within a couple days or within the week."

However,
Because its obvious to me that Waco was "fed" something, we have two ways the presumptions could go supporting whether to believe in "next day" announcement and it for sure involving a license agreement.
1- Waco's credibility was hung out to dry by BL over another "peace talk" tidbit push. This presumption is reasonable based on MMRF history with PR/FB spin, let alone using paid sources. And especially around a HIMSS conventions.
Mind you I have no proof that Waco was paid for his last two articles by MMRF, but come on, he is the "patents are worth billions guy" that was paid at least for that report.
OR
2- Waco was fed something he is very confident in its truth; that he doesn't mind putting it in an article and pretending it was opinion based on his own speculation.

Me? I'd love to say I believe "next day" (tomorrow announcement) based on "2" above. The obvious "fed" specificity leans me that way. But Ive been here long enough to know there is a good chance it is BS.

UPDATE: adding disclaimer. I do think patents are worth billions, regardless of the Waco / MGB report.

Aside from the fact that I also believe a WAG/MMR settlement agreement announcement is imminent; this is just another example of why I have grown soooo frustrated with BL.
How does Waco "paid to say the patents were worth billions" Hoover know this?: "while the two organizations work toward a settlement and licensing agreement for PHR patents." When has ANY news, filing, or even FB post said ANYTHING about licensing agreement???
And this... "In our opinion, there is a high probability that a settlement agreement will be reached in the next day and announced at HIMSS14, taking place in Orlando, FL this week"

There is ABSOLUTELY ZERO open source info available (at least any that meets regulation FD requirements) that someone could come to an opinion with such specificity.
1- Not high probability of settlement in next couple of days or so, but "next day"?
2- Not that this agreement would most likely be announced in the short near term, but "at HIMSS14" as if it was planned?
3- No one said anything about a license agreement in the works, yet this is said with certainty.

I cant wait till its announced, and I believe it will be. I cant wait to make all my money back and then some. But I also cant wait to be rid of this type of obvious BS.

I don't believe that is what FastEddie asked.
I believe FastEddie was asking about the court posting a deficiency in filing to WAG for their answer. It showed up on PACER.Gov today. A lawyer may have a different opinion, but from what I (a casual observer) understand, it is just the court asking WAG to correct something omitted in their electronic filing (their answer). Ive seen these electronic filing deficiency notices more than a few times in MMR's cases. Court Notices to both Defendants and MMR counsel for various things.
Today, the deficiency was WAG just needed to add a "Notice of Interested Parties", which they submitted today right after they got the deficiency notice from the court. WAG already filed one for the previously filed MMR case/claim. I therefore assume each case and each answer requires one. Its sort of like an assurance/notification that there are no conflicts (i.e. Lists all the parties the litigation impacts, and whoops, turns out the Judge is invested in a parent company of Defendant X and therefore would need to remove himself- aka recusal).
Not much to these notices:

Referenced Local Rule requiring this if anyone is interested:

http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/documents/LRs-Effective-2013-December-1-Chapter-1.pdf

A great read for anyone that is curious on potentialities of how a settlement with WAG may play out. It is already standard expectation that court filings continue as deadlined while any drafting of settlement in pay. This paper, written by a law student, and co-authored by Hon. Marcia Krieger (a US District Court justice) goes into the nuances of how to get the case "ended."

Maureen Sweeney and Hon. Marcia S. Krieger, “Options in Concluding a Civil Lawsuit”, http://facultyfederaladvocates.org/downloads/0705civillawsuits.pdf

I really have no idea, just baffled how someone can say "lorsched again" knowing BL doesn't write WAG court filings.
Have to presume its still being drafted though; same as what RM just said, WAG said they were doing it, court deadlines are still deadlines in the meantime. so......back to a waiting game. However, the longer it takes and more adversarial documents filed by WAG, I don't see how we could not presume that settlement agreement hit an impasse.

How do you figure? Wag filed a joint stipulation requesting more time to focus on drafting a settlement agreement, postponing answer to complaint till today. They filed that answer IAW their requested extension.
This does not detract from focus on settlement agreement, that is what WAG attorneys said in their filings, Bob doesn't speak for WAG attorneys, they did their own talking.

Walgreens answer to complaint posted on pacer.
Standard answer (standard denial/lack sufficient evidence, therefor deny MMR's claims). Nothing in it worth posting
https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/doc1/031118439904

"That there is no filing"??
I think that assertion needs to be made to WAG; maybe even on the WAG board (not this MMRF board).
It was a joint stipulation to extend WAGs responsibilities, not MMRs.
WAG has no other choice but to file exactly what they told the court in their last filed stipulation they were going to file and on their picked deadline.
If WAG doesn't do exactly what they told the court they would do, I bet we could post about WAG being an illegitimate company who told the court it was conducting "peace talks." That WAG CEO being a shyster. GOT IT. How bout on the DD Support and Fraud Team board!!!

Ive seen a filing posted same day, sometimes day after.
Just because its not posted on Pacer does not mean its not filed.
WAG filed a joint stipulation with the parties deadline, which would have been today. There will be a filing. Question is only a matter of time before we get a copy of it.

Its still not on pacer as of two minutes ago

3:55 Eastern, no new WAG filing posted on PACER.

Be positive, be negative. Be both at any given time and be credible. Atleast try to blend the intentional targeting better by not so obviously accelerating its fervor every time there is real news or increase volume and PPS. Come on.

Nothing yet on Pacer as of 1:50 Eastern
That doesn't mean anything wasn't filed today, just that it hasn't been posted.

A summons was issued in the SCM case out of LA Superior Court, but that was just for the cross-complaint by SCM.

Bottom line: Still waiting on WAG news, unless someone has a friend at the clerks office at the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA and could tell us if it was already filed and whats in it.

Yes, thank you SMF. Thank you for bringing out (if not forcing the bringing out) of factual information regards the Whole Foods Deal. I owe you.

Im trying to be positive- WAG drafting settlement agreement is a good thing. Real news coming shortly is even better.
But, I just cant help but notice a 250,000K dump.
Anyone with level 2 care to share who that was?

You are posting False information.

Those quotes you posted regarding challenge to patents are not "from USPTO"; they are from the claims filed by WAG to PTMO, required by court deadlines, challenging the patents.
THEY ARE WAG CLAIMS. NOT USPTO position.

1- MMR/Whole foods 8K was agreement to sell PHRs (apple)
2- MMR/WAG relationship is patent infringement litigation (orange)
3- WAG joint stipulation was a court filing that said they are drafting a settlement agreement of said patent infringement litigation.
4- Big difference between Hollywood production and WAG lawyers producing a court filing that if fraud upon the court, parties face criminal consequences.
Lets let the 8k agreement and follow on 10q/k that follows the WAG settlement speak for itself.

MMRGlobal HIMSS Exhibitor page for next week:
http://exhibitionfloor.himss.org/himss14/public/eBooth.aspx?IndexInList=0&FromPage=Exhibitors.aspx&ParentBoothID=&ListByBooth=true&BoothID=131606

MMR 2014 Wifi connection for Booth 875:
WIFI 2.4 Ghz Channel 11; WIFI 5 Ghz Channel (Preferred) 44
Sharing both their Wifi channels with 29 other companies as per this Wifi Exhibitor list. Oracle is one of them, using those channels on 4 of their booths. I also see Centers for Medicare/caid Services (CMS) sharing both. Hope big boys don't monopolize band-width with streaming demos. That would make you want to club your neighbor. To anyone that has been to HIMSS before, have you every heard of band-width limitations on wifi?
http://vendor.himss.org/himss14/docs/WIFI_Ch_ExhibitorList.pdf

HIMSS Booth Selection Schedule for next year's HIMSS in Chicago
MMRGlobal: Tues 25 Feb 1:55pm. If this WAG/MMR settlement is as big as we think it will be, I hope BL selects a double booth right at the entrance for next years show. One booth for the cheer leaders and one for the lawyers executing licensing agreements.
http://vendor.himss.org/HIMSS14/docs/BoothSelectionScheduleHIMSS15.pdf

Why this post is on-topic
1- Its about MMRGlobal's relationship with SKTO
2- Its speaks of potential news for an MMR program kicking off tomorrow.
3- Its further exhibits what MMR picked up (like stepping in poo) when it partnered with SKTO (its history of scam).
Its very relevant. (I omitted the SKTO stock board link in case that was reason why it was removed)

Walgreens isn't in the litigation business?
LOL. I beg to differ:
Walgreen (WAG) Sues Rite Aid (RAD), CVS Caremark (CVS) and Shopko Over Express Refill System
NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- Walgreen (WAG_) has filed a lawsuit against Rite Aid (RAD_), CVS Caremark (CVS_) and Shopko Stores to claim that the competitors are using Walgreen's new patent on technology for refilling prescriptions with mobile-phone scanners.

http://www.thestreet.com/story/12301757/1/walgreen-wag-sues-rite-aid-rad-cvs-caremark-cvs-and-shopko-over-express-refill-system.html?cm_ven=RSSFeed&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tsc%2Ffeeds%2Frss%2Flatest-stories+%28TheStreet.com+Latest+Headlines%29

Not arguing what the Court will ultimately put out in an order to Dismiss with or without prejudice based on settlement of the parties. Point is if MMR was in the position you are asserting, it would have been in their best interest to withdraw from the case (long ago).

There is no logic in any assertion that detracts from the WAG joint stipulation filed yesterday as being a GREAT thing.
Again, now we just need to know how good or bad the deal points are. Im not accepting any phone call from BL on how good they are either. SEC filings or DD from other sources is what I am hawking.

Voluntary dismissal is appropriate when, for a variety of reasons including strategic or tactical reasons, a plaintiff wants to dismiss his or her claim or claims, or wants to dismiss a party or parties from the action. Because voluntary dismissal is without prejudice, a plaintiff may choose to voluntarily dismiss when wishing to replead a claim in a different forum.

L.R. 16-15.7 Report of Settlement. If a settlement is reached, counsel shall (a) immediately report the settlement to the trial judge’s courtroom deputy clerk; and (b) timely memorialize the terms of the settlement.

L.R. 40-2 Notice of Settlement. Counsel shall inform the court clerk immediately by telephone or other expeditious means when a case set for trial or other proceeding has been settled.

L.R. 7-16 Advance Notice of Withdrawal or Non-Opposition. Any moving party who intends to withdraw the motion before the hearing date shall file and serve a withdrawal of the motion, not later than seven (7) days preceding the hearing. Any opposing party who no longer intends to oppose the motion, shall file and serve a withdrawal of the opposition, not later than seven (7) days preceding the hearing.

When a case is dismissed or otherwise terminated voluntarily, the Court may, upon request, determine the prevailing party.

L.R. 83-1.2.2 Duty on Refiling of Actions. Whenever an action is dismissed by a party or by the Court before judgment and thereafter the same or essentially the same claims, involving the same or essentially the same parties, are alleged in another action, the later-filed action shall be assigned to the judge to whom the first-filed action was assigned. It shall be the duty of every attorney in any such later-filed action to bring those facts to the attention of the Court in the Civil Cover Sheet and by the filing of a Notice of Related Case(s) pursuant to L.R. 83-1.3.

http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/documents/LRs-Effective-2013-December-1-Chapter-1.pdf

https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=4-30+MB+Practice+Guide%3A+Fed+Pretrial+Civ+Proc+in+CA+30.syn&srctype=smi&srcid=53D0&key=5c6bc513ce9473938df0923ad47d88bc

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/civpro/2013/12/erie-semtek-rule-41a-and-the-preclusive-effect-of-voluntary-dismissals.html

Not true,
Lets use your theory- that WAG has MMR so over a log that MMR has no other choice but to drop the case. Even if MMR was anywhere close to that, they could put in a motion for withdrawal with out prejudice (saves face, and allows them to sue later). And logically, wouldn't they have done that long ago if your asserted scenario was in play?
Whether they would get it or not (the prejudice or non-prejudice part) is up to the court. Ultimately we will probably see one of those motions to withdrawal after settlement anyway, but Im not a lawyer, wouldn't know for sure, and even then who knows what Delgado and Ward are working out.

Point: WAG wouldn't need to file not just one, but three separate joint stipulations to extend to (1) focus on resolution, then (2) concluding deal points/moving on drafting, to now, (3) drafting settlement agreement, if they had the power over MMR that you are asserting.

Thankfully the COURT filing (that means it wasn't a BL Facebook post or fluff PR; but signed by lawyers that would be committing fraud on the court if not true) said "drafting a settlement agreement" and not a "motion to dismiss." We already know how the latter worked out for Walgreens.
This filing is a good thing.
We get confirmation that they are actually drafting a settlement agreement.
Still just a waiting game on knowing what the "deal points" are.

This is a good thing. Again also, WAG attorney's who are filing this joint stipulation.