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.
what was the question?
Not sure how being new or familiar relates to projections of what defendants will do.
I disagree with you that we 'know' there is dissension. That is wishful thinking and speculation unless I've missed an official conversation with a bird. I think there might be... but we don't 'know', or at least I don't. It could just as easily be explained by all 13 unanimously agreeing that they want to string this out as long as possible.
If there is dissension and one wants to settle before trial... why do they need to separate? It's been mentioned on here plenty of times before this filing as a possibility that one will 'break away'. How then does this filing help us to know that there's dissension in the ranks since, per people who know a lot and have been here a long time.... breaking rank was already a possibility?
I got destroyed 4 months ago when I said it would be at least a year to get actual money in hand.
Now we see the 13 trying to separate.
Whether they win or not (They'd better not...) it *could* signal that they aren't ready to get this over with.. but rather that they want to delay as long as possible.
Does this change anyone's expected timeline at all, or is it just a blip?
Could their jump be related to our request for a trial. Maybe folks were nervous a settlement was coming soon, and now there's less urgency for institutions to dump shares?
Nice! I'd love to have invested in this at 26. Congrats sir :).. Then again, I'm 40 and I guess some would say the same about me.. Glass half full/half empty and all that.
Someone told me the other day that the glass is always full if you include air. I like that. With UOIP, the glass is always full! :)
Thanks! I wonder if the 1% is set in stone though.
Yes there's some precedent for the 1% concept... but if they'd have no business without our tech and have no choice but to continue the theft... I'm thinking more than 1% if I'm on a jury and see them continue to steal because they have no other choice (not talking about treble here... just a basic valuation of the tech that is being infringed).
So if people are correct that the infringement is acknowledged and the issue is a debate about the payout... I don't understand how they can keep willfully infringing while negotiations are going on... It seems that a true acknowledgement of wrongdoing would involve ceasing and desisting until this can all get sorted out. It would seem that they are setting themselves up for treble damages by not doing so.
What am I missing here?
Thanks!
I agree with all of that. I am simply saying that if 200 people are involved, any one individual may see less responsibility to act than if it was clear that they were solely responsible for everything.
I shouldn't have used plausible deniability. Maybe it's more an issue of herd mentality.
I disagree. There is some level of 'protection' here. If I'm a officer of one of the 13, and all the lawyers for all 13 companies have said it's fine, and the companies who have provided the tech have not only told me it's ok but put their money where their mouth is by indemnifying me... I'm going to consider myself to have plausible deniability (especially as a non-lawyer) if it ever comes back to me. The decision to adopt the tech and ok the tech was made by people before. As someone in charge now I'd feel like it's unlikely that I'd be considered the 'face' of the issue or the bad guy.
I agree with you that the logic of your example is ridiculous...
Then again, it's not.
Look at war crimes that have been committed by invading armies at various times in History (Take the Red Army immediately after WW2 in Germany for instance) There is strength in numbers, and context is important. There was no resistance, or fighting, and many of those soldiers got away with horrible crimes done to civilians that obviously would not have gone unpunished on home soil against fellow Soviets.
All I'm saying is that there are so many hundreds of people here involved that if I'm an officer for one of the 13, I'm not going to feel like it's my neck on the line with this issue. There's risk for standing out and settling early and then the other 12 winning the case or just delaying consequences for years.
try it? I'm the most positive person I know! Lovzu is in my name! :)
I'm specifically talking about the general bent towards thinking everything is good news.
If a Pacer is coming.. it's good news
If we don't hear anything... it's good news.
If a bird crows outside the window.... good news.
If COMM goes up.. good news
If COMM goes down... good news.
I guess it's better than seeing everything as a bad sign though!
Frankly I feel like a lot of the optimism I see here is confirmation bias. If something his happening soon, great! Everyone seems to think so.
Even if people can't get into UOIP, I think having the truth out there on COMM would incentivize them to go on and get this resolved. I mean.. I guess it's there in the share price, but I'd like to see the issue get some traction in the news. If COMM shareholders are pressuring them to pay up on the indemnification stuff and go on and get this resolved, it could only help. The 13 might not be feeling much pressure now because the issue is under the radar.
I've stated this before, but if I'm an officer of the 13, I'm incentivized to keep the charade going as long as possible and not settle right away. How could I be negligent when there are 12 other COs doing the same thing? Not saying it's right, just saying that this logic makes me think this isn't getting resolved quickly. I'm hopeful though.. We'll see...
Tony I think it's about time you submitted an article. Surely there would be some interest in why it's continued to go down each day. In the article you can reference each blog post where you predict a drop and then it happens.
I think you could basically take the format of the very first article ( which is what got me here.. TY!) and give new information ( RPX, etc.) and then where things stand now. SA editors might not have wanted to listen 3 months ago, but with billions in mkt cap gone, I think as an editor I wouldn't mind seeing some theories out there for discussion and debate.
they painted the tape.... but they def used red paint. :)
I believe they just applied for a name change to 'CommNope'
their share price doesn't affect how much cash they have on the books. Their operations seem to be going fine.
The hope on this board should be that the negative impact due to 'uncertainty' is greater than whatever they'd settle for.. which would make them want to go ahead and take care of it.
Tough to know how much of their price decline is due to this issue and how much is due to normal market conditions for their business... which are not that great.
Ha! Yeah I suppose it does get me a little heated.
To answer, my understanding is that the inventors themselves were offering this for $5M. I forget to who though, and it was turned down. As I remember from the filings, defendants are now wanting to go back and incorporate that offer into how this is valued.
I do get incensed at the idea that someone can not only steal something, and then when they're caught... benefit from by referencing an offer that was artificially low because it accounted for the fact that they would act in bad faith and make this an extremely long and hard process. That's like a double theft, and the idea of it does make me mad!
Hopefully the jury can see that.. if we get that far.....
Well that's what I'm hoping and thinking.. The price of the tech years ago was based on some risk. Will this work out, last long, be replaced, be contested, etc. Remove all that noise and uncertainty and I imagine they would have asked for a lot more than $5m, so I'd argue that a true value shouldn't be based on a past offer.
In the same way that many here would probably take 1/2 of what they think the shares are really worth if offered today,
inventors were willing to take life changing money on something that was more valuable than what they were offering it for.
I don't think their low offer should matter but based on the filings it seems to be considered as relevant to the valuation.
I think that's garbage!!! IMO, that is the risk you take when you steal tech. If it turns out to be successful, then I think you lose any right to go back to prior value. If I steal a Baseball card from a store selling it for $5 30 years ago and now it's worth $10,000, then I should owe them the current value of the card. In the same way, I believe we need to look back and see what value this tech has been. (Hard to determine since it's been essential to everything they've done!). but I think it's much more appropriate to use a % of revenue than some lowball offer we (inventors) made, probably in large part so we could avoid a protracted legal battle. Now that we've gone through all the legal mess, might as well get paid what it's worth and maybe some punitive damages on the side for our trouble.
Just for some light discussion:
It seems the defense case will ultimately rest on the idea that the tech was initially offered for $5M. I don't see how that makes a difference at this point, or how it would even be relevant. Valuing the tech now.. it doesn't matter what it was offered for a decade ago... What would matter is how useful it's been in generating revenues... and it's been very useful.
That said... I know we all say juries hate cable Cos, but is it possible that someone would hear that $5M number and balk at giving an amount 1,000 times that? Would an argument for our side be something like $5M invested in BitCcin would be worth far more than 1000x right now, so really we should be asking for more?
I really can't believe they didn't cough up the pennies and buy years ago when they had the chance, but I hope that doesn't limit the size of our win.
Thanks for thoughts!
I knew someone was going to say that! I agree that it's been an ongoing issue, but I'm still going to be surprised if they just cough up billions without a fight.
I think shareholders see VRNGs big loss a couple years back and are emboldened to want their companies to fight everything, and company leaders are pressured to do it.
I agree that it's been long and drawn out to this point, I still don't expect it to be as simple as a settlement this year. We'll see!
I'll be the first to diverge here.
I do not believe this will settle before trial, nor on the first day... I think they'll lose, they'll appeal, etc. Fight to the death. The sheer $$ amount involved is high and plaintiffs don't want to take a quick payday for less than is deserved, so there may not be a number ok with both.
Additionally, the other side may know that they're in deep trouble, so best option at this point is to delay as long as possible. If for no other reason than the execs/people who are close to retirement can collect a couple of more years worth of paychecks and figure out what they'll do next.. They are covered in that they can blame any woes on the lawyers, or on the other 12 who won't settle. Nothing now (except some prelim court wins) is different from 5,10,15 years ago when they were infringing, so current execs have plausible deniability and can place the blame elsewhere.
They are going to drag this thing out. What's the rush to lose big?
I would love to be wrong, but life is rarely that simple.
"I guess Comm *bottomed out.."
You spelled 'dead cat bounce' wrong :) :)
Comm short interest is up. Probably not enough to make a difference though. I was thinking maybe the 13 would short enough to cover losses. this isn't enough though.
7/31/2019 12,428,602 3,316,725 3.747251
7/15/2019 10,271,563 2,702,764 3.800392
6/28/2019 8,512,680 3,102,113 2.744155
6/14/2019 7,902,070 2,703,176 2.923254
5/31/2019 7,693,573 2,931,960 2.624038
I've seen a couple of situations where there was a large settlement/payment.
What I saw was about 50% about a month after the agreement, and then amounts in increments over the next few years. I think there were concerns about liability, legal fees, etc.
Not sure what it would be like in this case, but I'd imagine that some of it they could go on and pay right away.
I'd note that as a part of any agreement, the losing companies might not pay all right away, they might agree to do 20% for the next 5 years or something. Who knows?
google it man. they do if they have some say in the operations of the company. here is one excerpt.
"The Revised Model Business Corporation Act, as well as other state and federal regulations, prevent minority shareholders from being completely frozen out of the company's internal operations. The majority shareholders, directors and officers must fulfill their fiduciary duties to the minority shareholders. For instance, the controlling shareholders must inform the minority shareholders of their intent to transfer or sale of existing company assets into a new business entity. The minority shareholders can then either agree to the transfer or compel the company to purchase their shares."
I agree that with OTC stocks there are sometimes some shady things that happen... but that doesn't make it 100% sound or legal. Each case is a little different, but creating a new class of shares just for himself here wouldn't work. Can't imagine a reconvened board would think that's ok.
Not even going to touch the ownership topic which has been discussed ad nauseam... (fun fact-- literally means... to the point one would want to vomit.)
Have a good evening!
1. patents are assets.
2. one is not absolved of fiduciary duty simply because something goes private.
3.I agree that being a private Co it would be easier to screw shareholders... but that doesn't mean it would happen.
4. Majority shareholders have fiduciary responsibilities to minority shareholders.
There are people here who own millions of shares. At the point where $25,000 is due for a month's 'rent' on the $5m, a group could get together and send a certified letter to BIlly documenting that we'd be willing to pool funds and pay and all that. I can't see a situation where he could just choose not to pay and escape legal issue. I know you think this is worthless, but IF the lawsuit is worth a billion dollars, then five million is a non-issue. If we accept your logic that it's a problem, then any company out there (public or private) would have the same kind of issues.
I have done business with penny-pinching crooks, but they paid me everything they owed me when it was clear legal action was coming and they stood to lose everything. I have no worry about this situation for the same reason. No other shareholder seems to be worried about it either.
Have a good day sir!
Thanks.. I mean, I get that perspective, but as I understand it, most of UOIPs claims have survived any challenges and so there is no dispute about the patents. They are set in stone.
The question is whether or not a trial can be won about infringement, but I don't even think it's a possibility that they;d be invalidated at this point since the 1 yr. window to contest has already elapsed.
Am I missing something? Is there any possibility of the other two patents being contested? I don't think so.
one of the better posts I've seen from you. Interesting numbers.
So we know you think UOIP is a patent troll. I'm curious to hear what you have to say about this decision and how it affects the process. Don't be negative for negativity's sake, just want a basic answer.
Do you believe patents are being violated?
Again, I get your position on trolling so I'd be curious if there's anything beyond that or if you just stop there.
Have a good weekend star!
So my take from what I've read here and the glance I've taken at the patent, my thinking is that 822' was designed to be very broad, cover all contingencies, future infringements, creative work arounds, etc. I've heard it on here described as the 'bells and whistles' of the other two so I went in thinking that, but from my layperson's reading that's what it looked like.
I see this situation as our basic patents are clearly being infringed so the others cover it, but 822 is the icing on the cake and removes any creative outs the Cisco et al lawyers might try to concoct to weasel their way out of it.
Just my take.
$25,000 a month isn't really that steep for the record. On $5 million (ignoring compounding) that's $300,000, or 6% a year.
That's not usury or anything, just a reasonable (and in fact pretty low) rate.
I believe it's implied either way and hope we win... I just wonder if the court will read some intent into leaving it out (For example-- Trying to leave it general and broad in order to capture something that may fall under the umbrella later)
Does anyone have an opinion is to why that descriptor was left off when it's present in so many other places?
Strange for a case to hinge on a couple of letters.
I agree with that assessment.
That said, hopefully the written arguments carry enough weight.
On the plus side, Overall, he made clear that in context, 'channel' and 'RF Channel' mean the same thing, and he did point out where Cisco essentially said that, which was to me the biggest positive of what he did since the judges seemed unaware.
Despite his stumbling over words, I think the judges understood the position that the board created a new definition of 'channel' in order to make this too broad, and hopefully the fundamentals make the case for themselves.
Arguments sounded good. Summed up, we're saying that in order to make the absence of 'RF' before 'channel', the board had to come up with a whole new definition of 'channel' in order to make that a significant omission. We're saying that 'channel' stands on its own and has clear meaning.
Question:... Does anyone know why 'RF' was left off there? It's not clear to me why we didn't use it if it was used on the other patents and specifications. Were we intentionally trying to be 'broad' as a catch-all?
was it an oversight?
Thanks for any thoughts!
Hopefully all of our positions are 'large' once this all gets done! GL Sir :)
no success at this point. $13.00 at the time of this writing. Hopefully the steady and sustained drop will draw out some good question in the CC.
Thanks! Is that good for us? Chen is the one we wanted because he knows the tech, right?
What a joke to say they "believe it is without merit". They could get sued for that later on. If there is a patent, and you are violating that patent... There's merit, and you don't get to hide behind a meaningless statement.
Shareholders of those companies are going to call them out on that when this all goes down.
So I listened to both songs and it's nothing to do with lyrics, it's the beat. Definitely similar and one informed the other, but they are not alike and it could have gone either way. Decisions like that are great for us, and show the 'big guys' that the writing is on the wall when infringement can be proven.
UOIP's chances are great. People love the little guy.
Check out a recent court ruling on Katie Perry's 'Dark Horse'.
The ruling against her was unanimous and she's going to have to pay up BIG. In her case it was subjective. In our case, we have patents that specifically outline what is protected. There is no subjectivity here, and when we see subjective cases winning unanimous decisions, it re-convinces me that this is a slam dunk. Question is just when and how much!
Chance they proactively actually use the word 'Chanbond'...=15%.
Chance they proactively bring up 'legal issues' ....=37.5%
Chance they either bring it up and/or it gets asked about in QA= 70%