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.
that makes two of us.. Strange how this conversation even got started since that's the case.....
How am I not the one who doesn't get this? I'm not the one who posted about a big price move on Monday. Did you actually read what I wrote and what I was responding to? It appears not...
Probably not a whole lot.
1. The news was out Thursday, so if anything, it would have affected Friday trading
2. This week only a few thousand $ worth of shares traded. It seems most folks selling at this point are unaware of what they've got or they wouldn't be selling.
3. Writ is extremely unlikely to be granted in the first place. While this might move it from 2% down to 0.5% or something, this development shouldn't be any more of a surprise than when the writ is denied.
The bigger 'win' here seems to be that a delay tactic is losing legs. Probably more positive for the timeline than the near-term share price
real quick.. You have to be working ( have taxable earned income) and can do 6k a year if under 50, 7k a year if 50 or over. there are magi upper eligibility limits but if you exceed them, you could potentially contribute to a traditional IRA then convert.
Generally, a Roth makes sense if your tax rate is lower now than it will be in the future, and a deductible traditional makes sense if the reverse is true.
I like the Roth because contributions come out early without tax or penalty, so I can use it as en emergency fund, while getting all my earnings completely tax free if I can wait it out til I'm 59.5.
Probably don't want ALL your funds in there depending on age, but since we all need money for Retirement, would make sense to get at least some shares into one if you can. Tough thing is.. can't contribute shares, can only contribute cash to an IRA. Hard to buy shares at this point, but if you have any in a traditional IRA, probably worth considering a conversion to Roth.
Ok, but what are 'theories' to begin with, and why are they called that?
Is a better term that they are 4 arguments that this was prior art, or commonly used and shared technology? I just don't understand why it's called a 'theory'.
When you say it was "off the record", does that mean there is no written evidence of it anywhere, or just that it was not discussed in court? Anyone want to put odds on whether the judge will toss it or not?
Thanks!
Can I get a plain English quick summary of what this '4 theories' issue is?
I understand it generally as 4 lines of defense, or 4 protests against patent validity but why are they called 'theories', and why would both sides have agreed to limit it to 4 to begin with? Is anyone familiar with each of the 4 and can speak to their merits?
Seems like if #5 had any legs, it would have been brought up long ago.
Thanks in advance!
It was always known that it would be a protracted legal fight, so while it's probably an annoyance, I can't imagine that covering the costs here is going to be an insurmountable problem.
If getting done quickly was an issue, then the Cisco appeal would probably be dropped in the interest of time/money. The fact that it wasn't indicates that plaintiffs are prepared to see that issue through, which tells me they'll be fine on this one too.
May take longer than some were expecting though....
Yes that's fair. While I disagree in that I think there's value in understanding what's going on, I agree in the sense that since it's futile and we'll never know anyway.. what's the point in worrying about it? :)
That doesn't seem accurate.
GMC said he had a buy of 50,000 shares at $0.0152. If 1005 shares filled at .0145, then that means that was all that was being sold, otherwise more would have filled up to the buy.
Then again, maybe it's just the mystery of the greys.
People are welcome to do what they want, I have no problem with it and didn't mean to come across as critical of any individuals moves ( also want to be clear that on the buy side, same thing could have happened with me as I generally don't have a minimum # of shares on buy orders).
I am just saying, some of the sells I've seen don't seem 'rational' and all seem to bring the price under $0.15. It benefits me so I'm not complaining, I'm just saying that the more 'irrational' moves I see, the more it makes me think that the price is controlled.
The buying I understand.. it's the selling $14 worth of shares and paying $5 commission on it that's puzzling. Who would own that few shares? I'm just saying.. I've only been here a month and I've seen it happen enough that I felt confident posting early in the day that it would happen that way, and it did. Very odd.
If you buy $20 worth of shares... it kinda is......
Like I predicted... Few dollars worth of shares traded a few minutes before close to keep it under $0.015. Could be coincidence but it seems to happen a lot. Also, who is wasting time and money trading 2,000 shares at a time?
It's not a complaint either way, just an observation.
if you're not young it's even better because you can get to the money sooner.
I'm not saying it's right for everyone.. but given the topic in the post, I felt like it needed to be said one last time!
"therefore, there will be taxes to deal with"
Not if you get it into a Roth like I keep pushing!
I don't think so.. If it costs a few thousand dollars a week to keep the price around a certain level, that would be reasonable even if there was only a 1% chance of settlement. In other words, making efforts to keep the price low wouldn't necessarily equate to a capitulation on their part, nor would it necessarily be something that means friends and family should be investing.
Putting myself in their position, that's what I'd do anyway.
My prediction:
With the caveat that I think the daily price movements of a few hundred dollars worth of shares are essentially meaningless (Supported by the fact that much of the time my trades were what moved the price), in the past month it has seemed that any time it hits $0.015 during the day, there is a sell below that before the close to bring it to $0.0149 or lower. $0.015 rounds up to $0.02 and it would show as an increase at places where price is only reported to two decimals.
If defendants are looking at $100's of M in settlement dollars, it makes sense to drop a few shares on the market every now and then to keep the price below a certain threshold if they think that may help hold down the final amount. This morning's trade was at $0.015, but I predict that it will close below that since that's what's happened for the last month. We'll see if my prediction comes true!
Why would this have any effect? It's not 'unpaid' it's more like a 'payable' item. Companies have liabilities and debts all the time. It's not like it's in default, and even if it's not paid next year it wouldn't be in default per se, since there is a provision to add $25k.
If push came to shove, $5m could be paid early if that would have a positive impact.
As far as not paying in order to scam existing shareholders, there are fiduciary duties owed and someone about to come into tens if not hundreds of millions would not risk doing something silly and going to jail and losing everything.
Just my thoughts.
lol. Hope that was a commission free trade!
Thanks makes sense. I was specifically thinking about when gmc bought 10 m shares at .0001. If there were 940m owned by insiders, then it seems all the public float could be picked up for $6000.
Maybe there was some reason they needed it to stay public, or maybe there were regulatory reasons why they couldn't buy more.
Perfect thanks. I knew about debt being paid but hadn't connected that with the addl shares.
I see there is still iceweb.net stuff out there, but was that divested at some point.?
I'm not trying to find something wrong just asking questions.. is that such a crime? Seriously.. I think this igloo guy is in people's heads. Im not him! I believe in the rule of law ( patents) and enjoy David vs. Goliath scenarios. I bought a ton of shares. A ton to me at least.
I get that new people can kind be obnoxious digging into known stuff, .. but if you don't want to deal with that, why not just put me on ignore?
Im her because I'm curious! And because talking about my the co. Seems a reasonable thing to do on a board like this.
I invested quite a bit and being as how this is the only place with ( albeit great) any info, and I don't see how asking about the foundations of a company equates to trying to find something wrong. Couldn't I just be looking at buying more? Why assume the worst?
Anyway, congrats on getting in at a great price sir. Have a good evening!
So about 4 yrs ago there was a 400:1 reverse split, correct? Then uoip divested iceweb and all that and essentially became a shell. Then they bought this patent, likely to have the process owned by a corporation rather than individuals and to mitigate liability. ... is this all right?
The initial deal (5m in 5 yrs and a very few shares). Seemed to factor in a very low chance of winning. I don't have anything to compare to, but it just seems like next to nothing, especially since even the 5m would be out if the co. goes broke.... no reason or means to pay. We're all early investors convinced we'd get her, or were there some positive surprises along the way? ( if so what?)
Since gmc mentioned dilution, I'm still a little unclear on shares .. Schwab says 1b yahoo 1.6b. Gmc said it was 1b when he/she bought but then there was dilution. Odd to me that they would have issued 600 m shares
For pennies. Was the money needed that badly, and how much did they get? It's an odd move if you have an airtight case..... I know it takes years for a case and you have to do what you have to do but if the lawyer were working on contingency anyway.... I'm not clear what the funds were needed for.
Thanks. Totally agree about the verse and while I certainly believe it..... I'm not always the best at putting that mindset into practice.
Seems like prices used to be crazy volatile in 2017. Funny that it's much more stable now.....
Thanks for the responses. Maybe I shouldn't have asked though, as it's kind of painful to be paying 100x what someone else did!
crazy that it got down to $200k market cap, and even crazier that the CEO or patent holders didn't just buy up everything at that price.
The wheels of justice grind slowly... but they grind exceedingly well. I've heard it a bunch... We'll see if that holds true!
Curious and bored questions:
your Average price:
How you found UOIP/year:
Resolution (money in bank) projected date:
First thing you'd do with $?:
Price you think UOIP would be trading at today if still pink
My answers:
1. $0.013
2. Seeking Alpha 5-2018
3. 10-1-2020
4. Pay CCs
5. $0.08
I agree with what you've said, with the caveat that in addition to 5 years, one must meet age 59.5 or another exception. If you don't, then earnings are both taxed and penalized whether you've had the account 5 years or not ( unless you have an exception).
If one is 54 or under, the 5 year clock wouldn't really be a limiting factor because you'd be waiting for age 59.5 to get the earnings tax-free anyway, so might as well do it simultaneously.
If one is comparing a Roth to traditional IRA in a case like this... the traditional has the same limitations (penalty until age 59.5)...
Since the lotto analogy was made, I see it as paying the tax on the lotto ticket before you win rather than after :)
Yes but.......
If you have the shares in a traditional IRA, it's the same thing, so nothing lost. If you are 40 and you convert and pay tax today... yes, there would be a 10% penalty if you pulled those funds out within 5 years, whereas you'd avoid the 10% penalty if you wait 5 years. That's actually better than what it would be in the trad IRA, since you'd be subject to penalty for the next 19 years.
I'd note that there are two 5 year holding periods on a Roth, so the one you refer to (for earnings) is different from the one for conversions. ( Each conversion has their own). I'd also note that non-deductible traditional IRA contributions that are converted are NOT subject to penalty if removed.
I've had my Roth for over 5 years, but it really doesn't matter since I'm only 39. All my contributions come out tax and penalty free either way, and all the earnings have to stay either way... However, if I pass away, it means that my wife can get everything in there tax and penalty free ( because now I'd have the 'death' penalty exception) so it's kind of a de facto life insurance policy.
True, though if you convert and you're over 59.5, the converted amounts can come out tax and penalty free, just not the earnings. Also, contributions come out tax and penalty free at any time ( unlike a traditional ira).
Credit is essentially free these days. I've been switching balances on 30-70k worth of credit cards for 10 years or so, paying about 3% a year total.... so if you hit big... it's not like you'd have to wait a full 5 years to start reaping the rewards. I've got 19 years til I can touch my earnings... but it would make saving for college/ weddings for 4 kids a non-issue... and I could always refi my house and pull all my principle out to tide me over in the interim, or at least pay off all the credit cards.
Just want to make sur people are considering it for at least some of their holdings.. taxes aren't going down anytime soon, that's for sure.
gl!
I mentioned this before but figured I'd expound (and give myself a distraction from my FTR options that tanked AH :(.....
While I don't know much about the stock or litigation and all that, I do know about IRAs. I would strongly encourage those who feel this is the year to get shares into a Roth IRA as soon as possible. Some people might make too much to go straight to a Roth, but you could always make a non-deductible contribution to a traditional, then convert ( note that a conversion is pro-rata, so if there are other assets in the traditional, it can get complex).
Anyway, if you have funds in a traditional IRA, you can convert in-kind (meaning.. you don't have to sell your shares).
If you have $10k worth of shares and in a traditional IRA and you convert now, maybe you owe $2500 (or whatever your ordinary income rate is) and if that grows to $500,000 or whatever, then you never have to pay any tax on that. Nice thing about a conversion is that your tax bill on that isn't due until you file for 2019 anyway, so you'd theoretically be rich by the time you have to pay the tax.
Feels great to hit it big, but feels even better to not have to share it with the government, (especially if a big win puts you in a new tax bracket) so I figured I'd put this out there.
Good luck! Long 852,234 shares (All Roth IRA)
No worries sir. I appreciate the discussion. I'm just a junkie for this kind of stuff and just enjoy being on boards and reading through everything. Boring hobby, but it is what it is!
I agree with what you've said, and while everything is a 'risk' I've always been attracted to patent stuff because there is some level of being insulated from the ups and downs of the market and I love reading through legal filings. I think this one has a great shot!
Mostly, it's fun to dream of riches, and this one seems a closer to reality than anything else I've seen. (Funny story, last 'penny' stock I bought was RTK about 8 yrs ago. Renewable energy or something. Got EXTREMELY lucky as I had about 50,000 shares at $0.70 or so. Ended up falling into a gain as the price of fertilizer jumped huge in one year and they were able to repurpose a plant to make that stuff. I should be broke from that investment (the co is broke now, renewable energy amounted to nothing) instead, I made 3x... pure luck/chance/blessing and nothing more. While that is nice, I'd like to 'earn' a win, and hoping this one is it!
God Bless!
Fair enough.
1. The grammar thing was an anecdotal point. Brought a smile to my face, but disregard if you choose. Understood. It's obnoxious when other people do that to me, so I get it :).
2. The AON orders were not my idea. Someone else was selling AON and I said I'd buy. That can be confirmed in the posting history, it's not a conspiracy and nothing I could be untruthful about.
3. I can't recall saying anything negative, other than it might take a while. Again, I own 852k shares. It taking a while does not bother me, so I don't see that as a negative, and if I ever get $, it means I can buy a few more.
4. I didn't state you were talking about me. You've directed comments at me in the past and so based on that, I asked what one needed to do to be accepted. I don't recall being defensive. The post was short and lighthearted, and you've read some things into it that frankly aren't there.
Anyway, I have nothing against you and after reading some of the stuff on SA about historical bashing, I can see how someone would get a little jaded by it, so I don't take offense and don't really wish to trouble you. I will state, though, that if and when this gets revoked completely, then there will be no reason for anyone to be here bashing or causing trouble since no one can do anything anyway. Therefore, it will probably be reasonable to give people the benefit of the doubt at that point?
Good luck, God Bless!
What does one need to do to prove one is legit?
Not to be 'that guy' but I believe that by saying 'apart' instead of 'a part', you actually stated the opposite of what you intended!
Good luck sir :)
yep..... Not enough $$$$$ :)
Since you mentioned it. I owe my (premature) thanks to someone on Seeking Alpha over a year ago.. Assume it was someone on this board but I have no idea who. I enjoy litigation stocks and just asked for ideas and someone said I should check this out. I read the article but it was running up to a few cents and I figured I'd missed the boat. I bookmarked it but it was at the bottom of my portfolio listing at SA ( alphabetized) so I forgot for a year til' I happened to scan down there one day.
All the things you listed are what attract me. It seems like a diamond in the rough that is undervalued simply because no one knows about it. I was specifically attracted by the 60% drop when it went pink-grey, since that shouldn't affect anyone's valuation if that valuation is based on chances of winning.
I've never invested in a penny-stock before and would stay away from most, but this one is almost more attractive because it's a penny stock. I still think a resolution could take a while.... but we'll see! :)
I'm with you and I get it. I now own 852,000 shares, so I certainly hope for a good outcome. My shares are all in my Roth so if I had the choice between 50x my money this year or 150x my money in 3 years, I'd take the latter. My comments about timelines are not meant to be negative, because I don't care if it takes a while.
It's only a premium if you believe shares are overvalued, which I don't.
If you're so convinced the price will fall, perhaps I should talk about the 'writing on the wall' and be suspicious of you! :)
Good luck sir!
(Frankly giving in and paying $0.014 was just a matter of practicality. It was a distraction at work... I figured better to go on and get what I wanted for a little extra than perform below par trying to save a little money watching it all day and thinking about it. Then again, here I am posting....)
That sounds great to me.
Trials, appeals, etc. take forever and so I think it could take "a while" but this is based on observation rather than knowledge.
Yes, suspicious. I disclaim most comments by saying I know next to nothing. All I said was that people were overly optimistic on the timeline a year ago (FACT) and that leads me to believe there may be too much optimism on the timeline now.
Money in the bank within a year? I hope you are right!
Thank you for re-posting! I'm a newbie and it was before my time.
It's odd to me that the share price today is hovering around where it was when the stock went grey. It seems like there have been some positive events ( settlement talks included) that haven't had an effect on the price.
Grey markets don't seem efficient and it would be fascinating to see some research on how price gets de-coupled from true event-based value. Maybe they'll make a movie about this situation someday like The Big Short, except this will be 'The Big Long' or something :)
Can you re-post the verification that settlement talks are going on right now? Thanks!
Not to be 'that guy' but I was reading through the blog posts on Seeking Alpha from about a year ago, and everyone seemed pretty optimistic that everything would be all settled up by now.
Applying that to now, it seems folks are thinking something will happen any day. Hopefully, but I doubt it.
One theory is that the companies will want to settle because of bad P.R. My thinking is they'd want to drag it out because of that... How bad could be P.R. be in 5-10 years on wrongs committed by past leaders on obsolete technology?
If I'm a CEO making millions and I can kick the can down the road a few years... why not? That's what happens with most things in life (Social Security, National Debt, etc.)
GL all. Long UOIP, but probably for a long time :)