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 is "GanLite"?
What new case?
Woulda, coulda, shoulda...
If the conclusion by the judge is correct that CLYW was begun as a way to scam us investors out of our money, then it's still hard to complain at the current status. We know the Board of Crooks almost succeeded in stealing all of our money while making themselves fabulously rich through theft of a patent they probably never expected to have in the first place (what scam expects to actually become worth money?) The succession of ever more egregiously dishonest "settlements" between the BOC and different bad actors was leading in just one direction: we all lose all our money. I credit Williams with saving us by invoking receivership and also saving many of us from being driven insane.
I think we will have a jury decision by the end of spring. I also believe we will prevail. Depending upon the amount of money we win, TM will have to decide whether to appeal it at 12%/year compound interest. As over-wrought as some on this board become, it has to be remembered that this is an emotionless matter of money. Turrini has vanished back into the tractless depths of the Paraguayan jungle and has stopped his laughable claim that he owns 20% of CLYW. The other members of the BOC have simply disappeared. Daic has been turned, by events, from our nemesis to being the one who will drag the rest of us over the finish line. Skippy, the alleged receiver, has remained invisible and mute, so we have no idea what he will decide in accepting or rejecting the BOC's allegedly felonious "settlements" in giving the company away.
In the meanwhile, I hope all of you have a great New Year's Evening and a happy and prosperous New Year. For 2000 years Jews said at each new year's celebration, "Next Year in Jerusalem!" Then Israel was born and it became true. For us I say, "Next year in Vegas!"
Fifty cents.
I had been unable to login since the 23rd. My password was rejected. I contacted ihub help and learned that not only are passwords now case-sensitive, but, apparently, they've been shortened to ten characters. If anyone else has been having a problem, try it.
In my experience, blown trials are the result of judicial ignorance and jury prejudice, not malice. Let's face it. Judges are trained as lawyers. Outside of the law they have, on average, a high school- level understanding of anything technical. It is therefore critical for the attorneys to teach the jury what they need to know. This does not happen, of course. Juries tend to be people who get stuck on the jury against their will and therefore carry a chip on their shoulders. Worse, the lawyers systematically exclude from juries people who do understand technical issues. Then, too, there is jury nullification, wherein juries jump completely off the rails and find 100% for their feelings or prejudices.
In our case, we have a judge who, through no fault of his own, has probably spent most of his time on the bench ruling on less technical issues. I have eight years advanced education and am a registered electronic technician and I do not understand most of the issues in this trial. If the Markman remains contested or even revoked, the jury is going to have to create its own definitions of the issues in the patent. There will be chaos. The win/lose will then come down to all the factors I've stated above, plus having to figure out WTF is going on. This usually makes a jury angry so it is imperative that our lawyers convince them that not only is TM guilty of theft, but of making it harder for the jury to rule. They will likely come down to the side they like more. If our lawyers are smart they will hammer TM's use of our technology after they saw ours and agreed not to steal it. That is easy to understand and easy to document. meanwhile, TM is trying the grape shot approach: fire everything they can cram into a cannon and set what gets hit.
This case is far less about technical issues than others. In my state it takes 10 out of 12 jurors agreeing to render a verdict in a civil case.
IOW, we can expect the trial date to slip?
Cuts both ways, doesn't it? The vacate page is standard for any motion. If the judge so orders, doesn't this put us back before the Markman, with the terms again undefined?
Very nicely argued. However, what is the chance the judge will admit he did a poor job in the first place (after three months) and grant Calypso's motion?
Did anyone here ever sell their million shares to the guy who was offering $2.50/share?
I have a wireless router for my home network. I also receive the signal from the routers of my three closest neighbors -- a distance of perhaps 400 feet each.
Sources Claim Sprint, Clearwire Are Close to a Buyout Deal
Shane McGlaun (Blog) - December 12, 2012 8:30 AM
Print
Sprint hopes to complete the deal in the same timeframe the Softbank deal is wrapped up
The department that handles acquisitions and mergers at Sprint has been very busy lately. Sprint announced that it would be selling a majority stake to Softbank for $20 billion in October. Sprint has also long coveted the wireless spectrum that partner Clearwire holds and uses for wireless internet service.
Sprint has made no secret of the fact that it wants to own all of Clearwire. CNBC reports that that Sprint and Clearwire are moving closer to a deal that would see Sprint acquire the reamaining 49% of Clearwire shares. According to the sources, the deal isn't imminent but the two companies are in active negotiations and hope to make an announcement by the end of the year.
Sprint has also reportedly been having talks with other major Clearwire shareholders, including Intel and Comcast, to purchase the stock those companies hold in Clearwire at roughly 3 dollars per share.
Interestingly, in June of 2012 Sprint cut its voting stake of shares in Clearwire to less than 50%. Sprint said later that it had cut its voting shares to avoid Clearwire's potential loan default from triggering issues with its own debit.
Source: CNBC
Let me get this straight. TM is arguing:
1. We did not infringe CLYW's patent.
2. If we did, their patent is not enforceable.
3. If the patent is enforceable, the intrinsic evidence is on out side.
4. If the intrinsic evidence is not on our side, the extrinsic evidence is on our side.
5. If the extrinsic evidence is on our side, the claims of the parent are too vague.
6. If the claims of the patent are not too vague, the wording of the patent is unenforceable.
7. If the wording of the patent is not too vague, the terms are too vague.
8. If the terms are not too vague, there was never an agreement between TM and CLYW to allow CLYW to jointly market this technology and our patent was developed independently.
9. If there was an agreement to market the patent jointly, the patent is too old to be enforceable now.
10. TM never made any money from the technology.
11. If the patent is enforceable now, the patent itself has no value.
12. TM is not in the telecomm business.
13. TM does not market telecomm services.
14. CLYW does not have a patent.
15. You have bad breath and your mother wears combat boots. And your sister is ugly.
>>"embracing external creativity and knowledge resources"...
"Embracing theft of intellectual property and patent infringement..."
Interesting take on patent validity suits. Suggests that TM's foot-dragging in this case is a sign of their weakness.
University of Illinois College of Law
Law and Economics Working Papers
Year 2006 Paper 52
How Are Patent Cases Resolved? An
Empirical Examination of the Adjudication
and Settlement of Patent Disputes
Jay P. Kesan Gwendolyn G. Bally
University of Illinois College of Law, kesan@illinois.edu
yUniversity of Illinois, gball@uiuc.edu
V. Conclusions
This work is part of a growing empirical effort among economists and patent law scholars
to understand the patent system and its workings. In this article, we attempt to answer some
fundamental questions regarding the role played by the courts in the patent system by examining
a set of patent cases in great detail. To this end, we have constructed a new database based on
court docket reports for all patent cases filed in 1995, 1997 and 2000, and tracked the evolution
of these cases (about 6300 cases) through to settlement or adjudication on the merits. The focus
of this effort is on keeping track of a number of variables to understand the precise disposition of
each case.
We have also tracked different characteristics in order to estimate patent litigation costs
in each case. For instance, we note the amount of time taken by each case through to final
disposition. In addition, we have devised a new proxy for measuring costs: the number of
documents filed by all the parties in each case, which we believe is more closely correlated with
actual litigation costs than the traditional measures of time expended and the stage of termination
in each case.
Our results show that many more patent cases are adjudicated on the merits (either at the
pre-trial stage through a grant of summary judgment or at trial) than is commonly thought. This
work is one of the few scholarly efforts in empirical litigation scholarship that can actually
estimate this amount, because most other papers rely exclusively on the imprecise categorization
of the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts to determine case outcomes. Our results
demonstrate that, in addition to the small number of patent cases going to trial (about 5%),
another significant percentage of cases (about 6-9%) are resolved on the merits through summary
judgment.
Consequently, summary judgments are important in patent cases for determining patent
validity and infringement, and the summary judgments related to patent validity occur earlier in
the litigation compared with summary judgments related to patent infringement. This result is
somewhat encouraging given the important role played by the courts in revoking patent rights
improvidently granted at the outset by the PTO. Nevertheless, despite the fact that such rulings
occur “early” in the proceedings compared to patent trials, we should still be concerned about the
huge transaction costs associated with patent litigation, because summary judgments, in general,
and summary judgment, based on invalidity in particular, are expensive compared with summary
judgments granted on other grounds.
In addition, there is a significant difference in duration and number of documents filed in
cases resolved through summary judgment for the 1997 filed cases compared with the 1995 filed
cases. This is consistent with the changes brought about by the Markman decision, which
invigorated claim construction as a threshold legal issue in patent litigation. The increased
importance placed on first construing the claims before addressing infringement or invalidity
after Markman necessitates that significant resources be allotted to the step of claim construction
before (or concurrent with) filing motions for summary judgment.
Hence, it is not surprising that
in the 1997 filed cases more resources were expended earlier in the litigation compared with the
1995 filed cases.
Overall, our results show that transaction costs associated with patent litigation loom
large, and rulings on the merits by the courts concerning patent validity, patent infringement, and
remedies for infringement (i.e., injunctive relief or damages) are rare, expensive, and not pursued
to completion by most litigants. Instead most patent cases settle fairly quickly (about 12-15
months) after the filing of the complaint, thereby reducing the actual cost of patent litigation
considerably.
This work has significant implications for all civil litigation in general, and for recent
efforts to reform the patent system by either improving patent quality through new administrative
procedures at the PTO or for substantive patent law reform. Our results strongly suggest that
patent litigation is largely a settlement mechanism, and, hence, any proposed change in the
patent laws should be analyzed in terms of the incentives generated for prompt settlement of
patent disputes. In addition, entities and interest groups seeking cheaper and/or a greater number
of patent rulings concerning validity and infringement will be wise to look elsewhere, perhaps at
other patent institutions such as the PTO or at other alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms which complement the courts.
In the last several dozen posts.
Then, according to your math, once permission is granted for TM to file for a summary, there is a 45% chance that the judge will grant TM's motion to dismiss in part or in whole?
Agreed. TM's last hope is having a summary judgment in their favor. Ain't gonna happen. Judge is just warding-off future appeals when TM loses at trial and tries to appeal on the basis of not having had the chance to seek a summary judgment. That this case is so technically dense is just another aggravator.
Me, too, after a closer reading. But the question remains: why did it take the court almost three months to issue a final identical to the preliminary?
Does make one wonder about the 85-day delay, though.
Thank you very much for the clarification! I had not realized that. That means we are in the same position as before -- winning! I told you I had a hard time figuring-out the faster-than-light neutrino function of the patent that allows you to receive messages before they are sent!
Seriously, I feel much better now. The nurse is coming soon with my medications.
That's unfair. The judge has a good reputation. His Markman ruling is just incomprehensible to me.
No, they went from 2-1 to even.
I doubt it. He continues to act unprofessionally.
I did not mean the fight is over. Again, I have watched trials and technobabble only confuses and pisses-off juries. I am a registered master electronics technician and cannot understand most of the technical stuff involved in this dispute. Jurors will be completely flummoxed, negating most of this disappointing Markman. I doubt the judge will issue a summary judgment but wants to allow the motion to preclude any claims of prejudice against TM. This will come down to a jury decision based upon how they feel. That's the task for our lawyers. That the judge apparently caved to TM's hundred million dollar defense is disappointing but understandable. Daic, for all his past behavior, cannot compete at the dollar level with a company that has approximately $8 billion in cash. I expect the trial to begin on 4 March.
Take a breath. This is hardly over. It just became even more a case of jury selection and argument by our attorneys. My experience watching juries informs me that how they feel rules, esp. when it's David vs. Goliath. At least we now know there will be no big settlement offer. Next hurdle is not having the judge throw-out our case before trial.
Explains why the Markman was two months late. TM systematically dismantled the judge's preliminary ruling. I wonder how they did it based upon the rather inane TM filings we saw along the way. No wonder he granted TM the right to file for summary judgment, although I doubt he'll grant it.
I'm sure there is no joy in Daicville, either.
I believe it means that TM can petition the judge to throw-out our suit based upon what evidence TM submits. Sort of follows the court's Markman. 8*(
Very disappointing claim construction. The judge sided with TM almost exclusively.
Last I heard, the shell for Boston Dtox was up for sale. Don't know the details.
It could be worse than that. In the absence of any real data, my fear is that the BOC have awarded themselves tens -- or hundreds -- of millions of shares created without stockholder approval but will suddenly appear as "stock markers" when the TM case is won. Don't be deceived. Despite having standing through his 0.01% ownership of the patent, we have no reason to think Mr. Daic is at all on our side. Every bogus "settlement" between Daic and the BOC since 2004 has been sealed away from us owners who invested in good faith. We have no clue about the true financial deals that may have been done under cover of darkness. In my more pessimistic moments I can foresee us not getting a nickel -- literally -- from what the TM suit brings, let alone any future infringement settlements. If the receiver were a professional he would already have released to us owners CLYW's financial standing, as has been true in other similar cases. It is almost a year and he remains a character of fiction to us. Alas, he is not a professional nor has he performed as one.
Forget the BOD. The December, 2011, theft gives 28% of any damages to Daic.
If the judge is firm on his definitions, why is there no Markman?
>>I have a right to ask and try to understand because I owned stock in CLYW right up to the time the company was put into receivership. In other words I presently own some receivership shares of CLYW.
Either you are confused or you are not telling the truth. This has been covered ad nauseum. There is no such thing as a "receivership share." Shares are still shares in your broker's account or printed out and in your desk. They have been decertified from trading through a broker but still exist at par value ($0.001/share). They can be bought and sold through private contract. If you sold your shares before decertification, you have no shares. As you are one of this board's few resident pessimists, it is proper to ask just what your intentions are in posting here if you own no shares in the company.
Settlement announcement contains no details of the terms or amount. Typical for settlements. Just look at the CLYW Dec. 2011 outrage giving the company to Daic (have to wonder if receiver will honor it).
woops:
I find this entire case disturbing. I find the last eight years disturbing. I find no Markman disturbing. I find the possibility of the government and industry colluding to suppress the patent disturbing. It is what it is. And all the jockeying and motions and counter-motions still don't mean much. This is a jury trial (unless Payne gives a summary judgment in favor of TM). Jury trials are always wild cards in civil actions. He said, she said. I was involved in a civil trial in which the defendant was guilty as sin and the jury found for him. They were clearly angry at having been selected and then seated for two weeks having to stare at incomprehensible medical evidence and they took it out on the plaintiff. You just never know. Our lawyers better realize this when the technobabble begins in court. It's a case of TM stealing our stuff, not determining the cosine of the angle of dissipation resolution across an alternative phase-discriminative sub-space communicator.
From what I've seen of the judge's rulings so far, I can't say I see any prejudice on his part. Denying CLYW access to all the emails of 26 TM employees does not seem out of line. Payne appears to be a no-nonsense type and appears to be reigning-in extraneous stuff and esp. the way Daic goes galloping off in all directions at the same time. That worked against us shareholders when he was allegedly trying to steal the company. Now that things have changed, the court seems to be saying 'enough.'
A lot of people on this board are already trying to figure-out how to dodge the new capital gains taxes on the riches they expect to win in court. I think we have a better than even chance of winning, but there are far too many factors beyond our control -- even beyond our sight -- to consider. This trial comes down to three things: jury, jury, and jury. Judges hate to grant summary judgments and directed verdicts as these leave them wide-open to appeals that may make them look like schmucks.
Soon the judge will likely seal the rest of what is going on and degree of paranoia will spike for us. We have the facts and a rapacious litigation team on our side. TM has great bags of money and an urgent need to squelch our patent for their defense. Time will tell.
>>16b - Court orders TM to provide a formal discovery response stating that all documents in its possession related to this topic have been produced.
Excellent. They face perjury if they withhold anything.