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.
VERY BAD CLAIMS CONSTRUCTION FOR PTSC.Here is why: PTSC argued strenuously in their claims construction brief to avoid having the limitations they agreed to over come prior art and have the patent issued in the first place from entering the courts claims construction. Judge Grewal disagreed with PTSC and agreed with the defendants. He is how the judge frames it. The bolded is the defendants requested claims construction:
"The parties to this litigation agree that the disputed term must be limited as “an [oscillator] that is located entirely on the same semiconductor substrate as the [central processing unit].”26 Where they disagree is whether the term should further be limited to read as “an [oscillator] that is located entirely on the same semiconductor substrate as the [central processing unit] and does not rely on a control signal or an external crystal/clock generator to cause clock signal oscillation or control clock signal frequency
This is the claims construction ordered by the judge on 9/22:
“an [oscillator] located entirely on the same semiconductor substrate as the [central processing unit] that does not require a control signal and whose frequency is not fixed by any external crystal.”
The judge ADDED THE LIMITATIONS PTSC DID NOT WANT (underlined). They are not requiring a control signal and whose frequency is not fixed by any external crystal. Clearly the defendants use a control signal for the oscillator and that is the PLL.
Below the judge basically whacks PTSC entire argument:
"Plaintiffs principally argue that the distinctions drawn from Magar and Sheets are already expressly included in the patent claims themselves. It is true that the “on-chip/off-chip” distinction and the invention’s variability depending on PVT are reflected in other limitations. But those other limitations do not get at the full range of distinctions drawn, especially the claimed invention’s oscillator frequency not being fixed by any crystal off-chip and the oscillator not needing any control inputs. The Federal Circuit has been clear that claim construction must reflect all disclaimers, not merely a subset."
I expect the defendants will now file for summary judgment and get the win. The key part that does PTSC in is "not requiring any control inputs". Clearly the PLL in the defendants and all modern chips IS A REQUIRED CONTROL INPUT there is no other way to describe it. Without the PLL their chips would not function as they do so it is obviously required. Case closed.
Now would be a great time to sell before the market has time to digest this information. I fear it is fatal for PTSCs case or at least will make it greatly confusing to a jury and draw out the case quite a bit longer. Seriously folks I would hate to see you lose money here for no reason.
No Garmin or B & N PR is EVER coming and the reason I know this is PTSC has never issued a license PR more than 1-2 weeks after the legal settlement was announced in court filings. What usually happens is PTSC takes a tiny nuisance value settlement and they simply do not have the leverage to get the licensee to allow them to put out a PR. The reason we know this is PTSC seems to PR every license they can. We know the license fees are probably nuisance value because almost every one for many years has been nuisance value or less.
The "run-up" has more to do with the Euro flip which happens from time to time with PTSC. Volume trading in Germany bought at a different exchange rate is sold here. IMO some kind of arbitrage scam. It gives the stock a little liquidity which would help a seller in the US get out without taking too big a hit.
mR d..True I held PTSC back in the day for a few run ups but certainly holding the stock as you have done with the ITC and court debacle has proved to be a very bad move. As always with PTSC it is better to watch from the side lines rather than going long friend.
ZERO shares traded today. Not good to have such poor liquidity imo. There is simply no interest in the stock right now. I would hate to try to be selling shares! If you tried to sell 50,000 shares the stock would tank into the sub .02c range like it did last week a few times. The stock seems poised to collapse to the sub penny range. Glad I am watching from the sidelines. My hope us to scoop up some shares in the sub penny range next year speculating on a positive court ruling in the fall/winter of 2016. I would then dump them ASAP and maybe scoop up some before the appeal ruling in 2017. Seems like an easy double or triple from the sub penny range. You have to play this stock smart and that means not holding shares for more than a few hours or days.
This is from "ronran" and it points out even a positive markman ruling will only keep PTSC in court rather than ending their case immediately. Companies are simply not settling with patent trolls like PTSC these days because the popular and political winds are on their side. Samsung or any of the other litigants will take a case all the way through trial and appeal. YEARS from now this will be resolved. They would appeal all the way to the Supreme Court rather than pay PTSC more than a nuisance value settlement. Every company PTSC goes after will do the same thing. That is simply how things are today. Until that changes in a few years (my guess is maybe in the legislative session of 2017) then PTSC will never be worth more than 3c and the 3c is generous without any income. Here is ronran's post read it and understand that the patent licensing business changed 180 degrees since 2006:
"It saddens me to see folks engaging in "practical insanity" --- watching the same thing happen over and over again yet expecting a different result.
Even if the Markman ruling comes out today (which is highly doubtful in and of itself although Judge Grewal has done so on a previous occasion just by my recollection), and even assuming it is highly favorable to us as in past cases, it is extremely unlikely to result in any significant or sustainable increase in our stock price. The reason, which I've stated many times in the past, is that even a favorable interim court ruling does not, in and of itself, result in any money being immediately deposited into PTSC's bank account. And, as history has repeatedly shown, the only thing that will cause the kind of increase in the stock price we would all like to see is money in the bank, and lots of it.
Unfortunately, message board "rah rah" talk about "big days" and so forth simply cannot operate as a substitute for revenues and earnings. If it could, the folks on the EDIG board, for example, many being very nice folks and longtimers like many of us here, would be zillionaires.
Our Markman ruling, again assuming it is favorable, will do nothing more than allow us to stay in court and proceed forward, perhaps by filing a motion for summary judgment on infringement. But even if that motion is filed and granted, it will have only a similar effect on an immediate basis, and for the same reason.
LAST .0212c Quite a bit of selling today. I wonder when the stock will break below 2c? The stock is very weak now.
People-Even a good marksman hearing tmrw will not help U one bit. In the current legal atmosphere against patent trolls like PTSC judges and juries will not allow such companies to extort money out of productive beneficial companies like PTSC is persecuting. That is a fact. There is currently no hope of making money here until the anti extortionist atmosphere changes and that will not happen for years if ever. The most prudent course of action is to sell ure shares until the legal situation is all cleared up. The soonest is around 2017. I am trying to help U all with my knowledge of the law and tech.
Somebody just unloaded 400,000 + shares was that U mR d?
This is key from the IPWATCH article: "What can a small innovative company or independent inventor do when a large corporation steals their innovation out from under them? Nothing really. Unless this is fixed pretty soon there will be less innovation to steal because individuals and those small innovative start-ups wont be able to get funding, which means they wont be able to innovate in the first place. Making it harder for individuals and start-ups will lead to less innovation because large companies, with only a few exceptions, simply do not innovate."
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/09/15/fixing-the-patent-system-requires-a-return-to-strong-patent-rights/id=61684/
This is why I say the legislative hurdle must be overcome with PTSC. The problem is 2016 is an election year and very little litigation gets passed them because legislators do not want to put themselves out on the limb so voters can oust them. That is why I say it may take until 2017 for things to clear up with PTSCs chances that is if they win the Markman hearing this week with a ruling expected in a few months (this is the leisurely pace of the US federal district courts) and the trial in the summer of 2016.
I post helpful PTSC info because I hate to see people lose money in a company that is so very much not geared to increasing shareholder value. I point out the many many hurdles for them ever making any money as a way not only yo help others but lay out the things that must be overcome IF PTSC were to ever make money for myself. So my interests are not purely altruistic. I would recommend you, mR d., sell your shares and wait for some clarity in this very messy stock. I will post when it might be a risk worth taking. Your wheelcomb!
Read this! It is what dooms PTSC right now (u 2 mr dee!). We are in a new patent system supported by democrats republicans and the judges they appoint where patents can be used by big campaign donating tech companies for free. This is why PTSC will not see a single significant license fee until this is cleared up and with the election in 2016 it could take several more years than that maybe 2017-18. The tech companies know the law protects them now. Until the legislative mess is cleared up PTSC shareholders cannot hope to make any money on the stock. I would sell at 3c and maybe buy back in at .006c as a crap shoot based on the legislation going PTSCs way. My excellent knowledge of the law tech AND the political/legislative situation is worth listening 2 my friends. Don't bee foolish not listening to the facts:
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/09/15/fixing-the-patent-system-requires-a-return-to-strong-patent-rights/id=61684/
"Given that all branches of government – the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary – have embarked on a decade long, top-to-bottom restructuring of the patent system it is no great mystery that the patent system in America is inefficient and private, arms-length bargaining between innovators and innovation users simply no longer happens. Patents are weaker, less capable of being enforced, and much more likely to be successfully challenged.
The entire government has essentially thrown out the old patent system that was responsible for revolutionary innovations and replaced it with a system that rewards copyists who ignore innovators and infringe patents without concern or consequence. “We used to have, for the most part in this country, what I’ll call an honor system where companies that were using technologies patented by others willingly took licenses without being forced by court orders to do so,” former Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel explained. “The honor system now is largely gone… So in the environment where the honor system is gone what really is a patent? It’s a ticket to file a lawsuit.”
Ignoring patent rights is called efficient infringement. It is efficient because patent rights are so weak, it costs so much to enforce patent rights, and those rights are so easy to invalidate, why would a reasonable businessperson do anything other than force patent owners to sue? Those engaging in efficient infringement know that at least some, if not many, innovators simply will not pursue them for infringing because of the cost and climate, which is inhospitable to innovators.
Unfortunately, with no real prospects at a fair, reasonable, arms-length negotiation innovators have little recourse other than suing. So non-existent is the market for fair, arms-length negotiations that without bringing a lawsuit those who use, or steal, the innovations of others simply refuse to deal. Patent owners are forced to either engage in high risk, costly patent litigation, or to simply watch as large entities make mountains of money going to market with an innovation they pioneered. This can’t be what our Founding Fathers envisioned; it wasn’t what President George Washington envisioned when he became America’s first patent licensee.
How did things go so wrong? Why has the Supreme Court declared war on software, biotechnology related innovations and medical diagnostics? Why has the Patent Office tolerated patent examiners who don’t show up for work and refuse to issue patents? Why has Congress created burdensome administrative procedures that make it easier for challengers to kill patent rights without the benefit of a trial in federal court? Why does Congress continue to seek further reforms that will weaken the patent system and make it increasingly impossible for those who innovate to find enough incentives to make innovation worthwhile?
Congress, the Obama Administration and the Courts have been misled. It is axiomatic that patent protection incentivizes innovation and creates jobs. Changing patent law in ways that make it nearly impossible for inventors and start-up companies to pursue innovation will have a substantial negative impact on job creation and the economy. As a result of misguided patent reform and bad judicial decisions a primary foundation of the great American economic engine is unnecessarily crumbling.
Over the past decade, the patent system has been turned on its head and patent rights have eroded year after year (see here and here). Once celebrated, inventors are now vilified. A crafty narrative has emerged.
There is a mistaken belief by some that our national innovation ecosystem is somehow fostered by a regime whereby patent and other intellectual property rights are ignored. Of course, to argue that patents get in the way of innovation is absurd. (See here, here, here, here and here) There is evidence that can withstand even first level scrutiny that suggests patents inhibit innovation. Indeed, if patents get in the way of innovation you would expect countries without a functioning patent system, or weak patent rights, to flourish. What you see is exactly the opposite. Where there are little or no patent rights available there is little or no innovation, and truly little or no functioning economy. Such a reality is hardly surprising given the cost of innovation and the reality that it makes absolutely no business sense to invest in innovating if another can simply take your research and development without consequence. “At the end of the day if you do not own the exclusive rights to the problems you are solving you are going to get copied at an astronomical rate,” explains Jay Walker, a prolific inventor and the founder of Priceline.com. “If we can’t own the solution to the problem the last thing I want to do is invest in the solution.”
Without patent rights the free-rider problem is very real. The free rider will always succeed ahead of the pioneer because the free rider can charge less given they didn’t have to invest to innovate. We see this free-rider problem already. With few exceptions large corporations do not innovate, rather they take innovation from others. Sometimes they take innovation legally by acquiring innovative start-up companies, but increasingly given the patent climate in the United States they simply ignore patent rights and do as they please. They are bigger than the companies that innovate; they have access to the streams of commerce.
What can a small innovative company or independent inventor do when a large corporation steals their innovation out from under them? Nothing really. Unless this is fixed pretty soon there will be less innovation to steal because individuals and those small innovative start-ups won’t be able to get funding, which means they won’t be able to innovate in the first place. Making it harder for individuals and start-ups will lead to less innovation because large companies, with only a few exceptions, simply do not innovate.
The false narrative that patents harm innovation has taken root and is grounded on an erroneous definition of innovation. Innovation is doing something new. Through great effort and as the result of winning the linguistic battle, giant corporations have convinced lawmakers that innovation is not about doing something that has never been done before, but instead these copyists argue that innovation is about whether they themselves are able to sell a product that they have never before manufactured or sold. The fact that the product is new to them does not mean the product exhibits even a smidgeon of innovation. In fact, in many cases these allegedly new products are nearly identical to other products and offerings already in the marketplace. Simply stated: It is not innovative to offer something that already exists. This self-evident truth has been lost on, or flat out ignored by, Legislators and Judges.
Patents fulfill their role when they are strong and require those who seek to take a product or service to market to either reward the original innovator, or to engineer around the patent. When patents are weak there is no incentive to engineer around, and likewise no incentive to deal with the original innovator. Thus, a weak patent system guarantees lethargic, nearly static levels of innovation. If we want innovation to leap forward rather than crawl at a snail’s pace a functioning patent system that provides strong patent rights is absolutely required.
Despite what the critics will argue, there is no historical evidence to prove that weak patent rights lead to greater innovation. Absent even a scintilla of evidence that weak patent rights foster innovation those advocating for a weakening of the patent system and the patent grant should be forced to carry a heavy burden. Instead many policy makers and Judges, particularly Supreme Court Judges, seem to place the burden on innovators as if the patent system has had nothing to do with America’s innovative successes.
Samuel Clemens, better known as Mark Twain was an inventor and patent owner. Twain believed strongly in the value of the patent system. In his book, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court, Hank Morgan, the Connecticut Yankee, said “…the very first official thing I did in my administration-and it was on the very first day of it too-was to start a patent office; for I knew that a country without a patent office and good patent laws was just a crab and couldn’t travel anyway but sideways and backwards.” There is historical precedent to back up what Twain writes. In his first State of the Union speech President George Washington implored Congress to enact Patent Laws, which they did as the third Act of Congress. Abraham Lincoln also recognized the importance of a strong patent system, saying that the U.S. patent system was one of the three greatest innovations of all-time. Again, if you disagree with Washington, Lincoln, and Twain shouldn’t your assertions be viewed suspiciously?
Here is the info u need on PTSC. I will let you know when it is a safe bet to invest in PTSC for free! Here are some of the benchmarks 2 look 4:
1. Markman "win"
2. Trial win in August/Sept 16
3. The passage of legislation expected some time next year on "patent reform" that does not exclude NPEs (patent trolls) like PTSC from seeking licensing fees (this huge uncertainty may take until 2017 to resolve as next year is an election year).
4. Appeal win some time in 2017.
5. The confirmation through 2 quarters of financials that licensing fees are large enough to raise the share price of PTSC.
There ya go! A basic roadmap. Tank me later.
I've been helping U buddie! For FREE! You seem to not know some basic facts about TPL, Alliacence and their relationship with each other and PTSC and how the court legally views their relationship. TPL not only sucked money out of the MMP by being a 50% owner but they, according to PTSC legal filings (settled out of court for almost nothing), used the MMP as a loss leader to sell their non PTSC patents! PTSC simply let them off the hook! An Apple license and PTSC got less than a few hundred thousand dollars...and PTSC management STILL was not suspicious until the inventor Moore legally disclosed the Apple license in his own suit and forced them to act or not be covered by their liability insurance in all liklihood! Otherwise they would have done NOTHING! So anyway obviously incompetent uninterested naïve management is a huge risk with PTSC going forward in addition to the legal and political landscape. Like I said "Flowers" seems to be a really appropriate name for a sucker or "mark". TPL also sucked money out of PTSC by having their company Alliaence charge another 25% out of the MMP proceeds for licensing. Of course in the end PTSC did not own any of their work product on the reverse engineering of accused infringers products or letters warning them of infringement despite paying a fortune to Alliacense. Now they do not have any of that info. A big problem. CEO Flowers let this happen. SO PTSC is a real crap shoot and not worth owning until all these issues clear up. Tank me later!
Sad. TPL is the 50% owner along with PTSC. Alliacense was simply the licensing entity legally. Not the case anymore but TPL is still a 50% owner. That is how you know who owns it. It was all in the bankruptcy filings. Had you read them you would know this valuable info. My excellent knowledge of both tech and the law can be very valuable 2 U !
Oh mR. d you do not know! TPL and Alliacense are technically 2 separate entities. TPL is (was) run by Dan Lecrone who still owns it and Alliacence is run by his own son out of the very same office suite. On paper they are separate. TPL actually also pays (now paid) Alliacense to license the MMP! About 15% (family discount). SOOOOOOOOOOOO to review TPL owns 50% of the MMP and essentially was paying itself, Alliacense, to license it (since Dan Lecrone was shown in court to own both I think it is a fair assumption) PTSC was also paying Alliacense to license the MMP out of its 50%. This arrangement was just one of the things I always thought about PTSC that stinks. That is why it is best to be on the sidelines with this stinker until things clear up!
Alliacense got their 25% cut of that then the lawyers contingency fee. Just saying! 1.1 million - 25% = 750k then minus the 33% contingency fee for the good lawyers! Just keeping it realistic.
After expenses maybe 400-600k and that is before PTSCs own huge overhead buddie.
Snicker. Afraid of the Markman? So what the best PTSC could get would be 1.8 million even with a jury trial win in late 2016 when the trial occurs and that gets spit with the lawyers and TPL. Maybe PTSC would end up with $400k after expenses...not enough to raise the share price. Basically the only way I see PTSC going up in price is if the jury awards a much larger amount and it holds up on appeal. Unfortunately this will not be known for up to 2 years from now as the legal process takes forever. I wonder if PTSC even has the money to stay in business that long. Oh and the few recent settlements have been for very small less than nuisance value amounts. How do I know this? From past financials and the fact that no PRs were allowed because of course we know PTSC would have wanted a PR. This is a sign of weakness.
'336 expires tomorrow! No more patent suits have been filed. While technically PTSC could sue for a look back period after infringement the amount of infringement gets smaller every day. Also, what jury is going to convict a company for infringing on an expired patent? I guess PTSC and their lawyers must have wanted to save some filing fees and extra work by not filing additional cases. I would worry that PTSC and their law firm simply do not have the technical tear downs and warning letters Alliacense sent out to accused infringers over the years. Without this information proving infringement is all but impossible. It is sad that Cliff Flowers simply let the Lecrones who run Alliacense roll all over them then take the key info and go home. They certainly assessed their adversary in Cliff Flowers. Weak naïve and not paying much attention to shareholders interests while lining his own pockets with 2 huge salaries. Anyway we wait to see if PTSC can pull off a trial win in mid/late 2016 and win the inevitable appeal in 2017.
LAST .161. Major technical damage not many shares but that is a serious bad indicator.
"A little more time" FUNNY! They have been playing this game since 1996 just looking for a little more time to show enduring results! They have made an entire career of it.
Falks experience: VP corporate DEVELOPMENT 2004-2009
VP corporate DEVELOPMENT and VP of OEM and international SALES 1995-1997
Prior to joining Edig he was Director of U.S. SALES for Resources Internationale 1993-1995
Before that he was manager of OEM SALES and technology LICENSING for Personal Computer Products, Inc. 1988-1993
And some call him a techie. So EDIG is going to hire a sales oriented business development person because they do not have one and after years just decided to make this move. Yeah right!
They just figured this out? Ridiculous. So EDIG has been trying to sell/partner NUNCHI since 2011 and Microsignet since 2012 and now they say they are going to hire a "business development" person. More BS from EDIG. Like the NUNCHI and Microsignet demonstration units EDIG said they were going to build 16 months ago. This is the EDIG pattern. The introduce the tech. Years go by with no results then they throw out a supposed new development to keep shareholders hopeful then they introduce some new tech.
E- I have always liked you over there. You have SOME objectivity.
Shareholders are thrilled board member Alan Cocomelli yelled out "yes" when Fred Falk read out the shareholder question "do EDIG employees have confidence in the company". Cocomelli has said things over the years for shareholders to cling on to with hope. The last thing reported from a shareholders meeting he supposedly said is that "when Apple comes out with the new I=Phone we would see the value of EDIG". That was 4 years ago and we never found out what that was about and Apple paid less than $200k for a Flash R patent. Probably about 2 weeks worth of their high paid lawyers. Shareholders continue to defend the virtual share holder meeting without acknowledging that it is a company controlled environment where questions are pre selected so as to be easily answered. I say that people "love" EDIG because no PR in the last 15 years has come even close to achieving shareholder expectations.
I not think you are in love with EDIG at least you criticize them from time to time (you don't get the boot here for that!). I just wonder why would anybody put money into a company that has no clue about how to sell, does not seem to have a saleable product, has a horrible 2 decade track record and does not even have a demonstration unit to show their tech. can be worthy of investment. I assume most are simply underwater praying for some kind of miracle. That is the investor I think the company does a great job cultivating.
Just a critical assessment mrk. I find it is not a good idea to fall in love with a stock like EDIG with no tangible results and lots of promises. Also, it is no "conspiracy theory" that the Polis family sold almost all of their 28 million or so shares since 2008. It is in the SEC filings nobody reads. How do you sell all that volume? Maintain continued interest in the company pumping potential that is never realized.
mrk-When EDIG introduces a new tech in March of 2011 and very strongly says they expect partners in the fall and rapid commercialization and mid 2015 rolls around with not a mention of that tech anywhere but message boards and the company website then I begin to suspect something is not quite right. That is why all I have said is I would have to see some actual results or buzz in the tech journals before I would take the company serioutly. I certainly would not want to have any money tied up in their suggestions of potential. The only reason their long terrible record of producing results is pertinent is they follow a formula: introduce new tech with great fanfare...years go by with no results...then introduce new tech with much fanfare. They have done this many times. They just did this again with "Pluto". Management is certainly not going to change and the board cannot be voted out by shareholders. Holding the stock is based on emotion because there certainly are no results to base it on!
No shorts or news.ZERO shares traded is about the norm for PTSC these days unless they can pull out a victory in the trial later next year. Could be an easy double from here on the pop BUT make sure you sell friend!
Danl- They do not care. They have made an entire career out of this. They have been very successful for themselves and Polis made a fortune selling cheap shares he got for financing EDIG. Polis used to have over 9% of the company in 2008 now very few.
Don B.from the Sacramento Bee is actually dead not so he will not be reporting kernels of truth shareholders do not want to hear any longer. I believe his daughter Laura Bauer works there now. I doubt she would touch the EDIG story as there is no point. EDIG has proven to be full of crap in all its claims since that time. Basically EDIG IMPLIES and SUGGESTED they were the engine driving the entire flash memory world. As it turned out they were completely not needed. Sound familiar folks! Like I said the brokers do not care how EDIG is run and cannot vote anyway. Their 161 million votes go to EDIG management automatically. More than enough to put them over the top until the company goes broke. Till then they are doing very well for themselves! EDIG management and board have made an entire career for themselves while somehow shareholders still love and trust them.
Sorry Danl- The "brokers" do not actually know anything about EDIG or any other company and are not authorized to vote even if they wanted to. It is simply a default that the non votes of shareholders held in their brokerage accounts automatically go to the current board. Not right but the way it is. On this message board people are free to disagree and do not have to support the company or be banned. Refreshing isn't it!
Polis/Warden NOT OUT.Broker non-votes go to the board automatically. There is really no way to get them out since any non voted shares (called "broker non-votes") go to them.
mR. dee-No companies are settling with PTSC for more than tiny less than nuisance value settlements due to the legal and political uncertainty about the value of patents from trolls like PTSC who do not use them to make actual products. Lawyers are now advising CEOs to take the trolls all the way through litigation whereas in the early 2000s they would advise to settle if the troll had a good case. The US Congress right now is looking at legislation that will end PTSCs ability to even get tiny nuisance value settlements. Google, Microsoft, Facebook all the tech giants have mightily lobbied Obama and US representatives to ensure the outcome. There is virtually nobody arguing for PTSCs patent troll side. The exception is research universities however they are simply looking to get themselves an exception which will not help PTSC. You have to look at the big picture when it comes to PTSC and not be myopic. Just saying.
mR buddie-It is a NEW Markman hearing and it will have new evidence that will be considered by the judge. There is a good likelihood the outcome could be very different for PTSC. I have an excellent amount of knowledge about the law and technology and have consistently been correct about the extreme challenges facing PTSC. If shareholders were not mostly deeply under water I think more would sell at this stage. Not that in a few years once/if PTSC clears all the legal hurdles things might not be different.
mR. dee you are so wrong. I have analyzed trading in PTSC and it is clear that there is a steady sell off occurring. Now that the stock inhabits the 2c range more and more this becomes apparent. If the selling continues the low 2c range should come soon then 1c. Of course that is unless there is bad news at the Sept. 18 Markman hearing. Then it is sub penny land until some clarity on PTSC ever making another dime arrives and that could be quite some time given that a trial is not until next summer then you have the inevitable appeal taking yet another year. Meanwhile the last valid MMP patent expires in 7 days. A jury is unlikely to award money to PTSC for a patent that is expired. That is a great risk for PTSC. The sidelines remain the place to be for PTSC imo.
.0271. Stock is VERY weak right now and even selling 1-2,000 shares drops the bid. Imagine if you tried to sell 100,000 shares. I doubt the stock would hold .02c. PTSC is very much trading like it is finished.
HOPE for EDIG! $$ > "This article about Microsoft is in line with what I heard commented during the "Virtualsharholders Meeting" something to the effect of we will announce Partners when appropriate. I could be wrong as I often am do somehow believe the company is quietly working several companies regarding "Nunchi". Those projects that are unknown can surface during the coming weeks months. I am of the opinion the development of a New Website within that time frame is for more than just viewers. The revenue streams of Flash and evu are coming to an end soon. The comment of focusing company resources on Nunchi, Microsignet and now Pluto development has to bring new revenues in some way or another"
Snicker. EDIG always has those billion dollar partners just waiting in the wings! The have been there for over 15 years. Sadly the story goes that EDIGs valuable patents simply got stolen in 2000 and somehow EDIG could not find a lawyer at the time to sue despite the fact they had millions of dollars and lawyers actually did take contingency fee cases back in 2000. Yes true IP was being enforced way back in 2000.
mrkool-You are not holding EDIG accountable for any of their past claims of potential. I do not know how you can just say they are "techies" who know nothing about sales and marketing and let them off the hook because Falk says something about maybe hiring a "business development manager" in the future. I clearly remember Nunally (who you will notice Falk no longer calls "Dr" Nunally LOL! You should see where he got his "doctorate" from!) saying in March of 2011 that EDIG would rapidly commercialize their tech and that they were not just tinkering around with some ideas.
I was suspicious at the time because the new tech effort from EDIG was initially announced about 1 month before the disastrous Markman ruling on the 774 patent in Colorado and the day after longtime VP Robert Putnum abruptly left EDIG. I had a fundamental mistrust for the company based on them coming up completely short on so many past claims of potential. As weeks turned into months then years with nothing from NUNCHI or Microsignet my suspicious havbe proved correct. Also, how can people just accept Falk saying only now he is trying to email tech journals to talk about NUNCHI? Not years ago?
You are aware that Falk was the VP of sales for EDIG for many years. He is supposed to know about selling. He is not some "techie" and has no formal or really informal tech background.