The more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation is.
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.
Thank you! Yes, already we have a clearer picture and we are one step closer to knowing (for sure) if N v G will be a settlement or trial.
Not sure if this got posted..... August 2 Netlist v Inphi will have a status conference at 10AM so maybe more filings before CC on August 3rd.
https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/documents/MCS/MC/77ac7f46-1c60-45cd-b810-8f2102cc6f15.pdf
Hahaha, well it should sound funny, besides missing the en, as in sharpening, the meaning is to reduce one's price lol. I thought it meant change one's calculation. In this case move it up.
I wonder if Suji Desilva is sharping his pencil.
If any asserted claim was in the original patent then Google infringed.
“The first sentence of 35 U.S.C. § 252, second paragraph commonly is referred to as a defense of absolute intervening rights.
This defense allows a party whose products infringe a reissued or reexamined patent to continue to use or sell specific products that were made, purchased, or used before the reissuance or reexamination, if the asserted claim was not in the original patent, so long as the accused infringer began its infringing activity before the patent was reissued or reexamined.”
I wonder if G will use such term as unenforceable or invalided, with examples, in todays submittal. Or just make things up like Samsung did.
It seems at one point they said, not as directly, "It's not Samsung's responsibility they would not sell what product they did have, to Netlist."
One born every second, and it’s those willing to be good that stand in their way. Can be very irritating.
“Moral” of the story. Unless you need the money for income or to reimburse a rainy day fund. HOLD! Netlist will pay and pay and pay.
Trial date for Samsung is 11/30/2021. If I were Netlist I’d be seriously considering choosing the trial. Samsung has consistently been full of ill will. How to trust them in a settlement situation?
An interesting thread on reddit the guy hired an attorney and will consider asking suggested questions if you have one:
https://www.reddit.com/r/NLST/comments/otk31x/give_me_your_questions_for_the_attorney/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
That makes sense, they have no need to be bearish or bullish just make the market.
In reply to Silvia’s recent post, a sustained trading range will cool off a chart that is, the averages will come to the stock holders.
"viewed as hostile" it is extremely hostile, as it's profoundly antagonistic. Literally the maturity level of spoiling for a fight.
They are just throwing stuff at a wall see if anything sticks.
Interesting to note next due date for short interest is 8/3 LOL!
NICE! I just keep in mind that 16 multiple. That is where up listing will be a big help.
All kinds of articles out there on A v Q this one mentions A owing Q $7 billion in back royalties which A stopped paying sometime in 2017.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-owes-7-billion-in-royalty-payments-qualcomm-claims/
I was wrong about the $4.5 not including the royalties. The "fees" are a mystery thrown in the pot I suspect.
After they reached a settlement the NYT reported the $4.5 BB that A paid Q.
And from another article Q owed A $1 billion sooo...
May 1, 2019
Qualcomm will book a one-time payment of $4.5 billion to $4.7 billion next quarter from its settlement with Apple in a patent battle, the mobile chip maker said Wednesday as it reported its quarterly earnings.
and...Excluding that payment, Qualcomm estimated $4.7 billion to $5.5 billion in revenue in the next period, its fiscal third quarter, with a midpoint slightly below the $5.29 billion analysts had been expecting, according to IBES data from Refinitiv.
and...The settlement with Apple, which includes a six-year patent license and a chip supply agreement, is expected to generate $2 per share in additional earnings, Qualcomm has said. Financial details have not been disclosed, but the deal is expected to help Qualcomm regain the pre-eminent mobile chip position it held in the early 2010s.
Food for thought. The first vid has a guy giving Qualcomm a multiple of 16 because of their business model. I think his thoughts on said business model are interesting and maybe will apply to NLST. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/17/apple-vs-qualcomm-why-apple-objected-so-strongly.html
Just fyi that 4.5bb did not include the royalties/license it was per phone and @ $7 each but not sure on that #.
#15950 is a great post by LocWolf and should be a sticky. Albright doesn't waste time I bet he moves this into mediation and twists some metaphorical
arms to come to a settlement. https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=164216370
Sorry about that just transferred that link from ipad to iphone via this board as nobody was really using the board. feel free to delete it. l’ve looked at parker. it will possibly do well but felt nlst a bigger fish.
Good update…
Interesting makes sense, it’s a strange system, this idea of “making a market.”Pre-internet wonder if shorting by the MMs was less prevalent.
Notice no DD just phrases designed to trigger fear and doubt.
That’s right these large caps have used the tech for free for so long it feels normal to them. Probably think the good they have done (jobs, wealthy shrholders, services to general population) justifies the means or at least smaller settlements. But this has been a long time coming and to my mind they should be thankful they are not being brought up on charges of treason, seriously.
That’s a new article for me but it confirms the truth of what’s manifested on the “ticker”. It’s an objective thing has nothing to do with the company per se.
Has anyone notice the rocket docket :) working with Albright?
Says CEO was CEO of Laserlink, was he during Laserlink's buyout?
So has either company asked for mediation? Or are they just going to barrel their way towards a jury trial? I know HDVY says they have tried to avoid trial but in what way? Has Intel refused mediation?
Yes :)
Nice! I wish you well.
Insiders are tied to prearranged sell points, so there can be no doubt.
The thing to remember is bears at some point become bulls and the settlements that will take place in the coming months have material value.
That value is why I'm here not the ups and downs of any given day on the chart.
No the pdf has been posted before. Imo it's a bear raid that due to fear has gone further than a gap fill.
...And since there are many that won't try to glean anything from the PDF
it's important to point out it's from 2017.
Sure the title says a lot:
RAND Royalty Valuation for Netlist’s
JEDEC Standard-Essential Patents
James F. Holderman
....and as stated in the intro the purpose is to.....
To All Interested Readers:
I write regarding the reasonable and nondiscriminatory (RAND) royalty commitment of Netlist, Inc. as a part of my engagement with Netlist’s attorneys, Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky & Popeo PC to conduct a neutral analysis as a neutral evaluator in pending litigation. In this letter when commenting on my analysis, I assume all interested readers are familiar with the terminology employed in Netlist’s field of endeavor. As you may be aware, Netlist is the assignee of a portfolio of patents and applications declared essential to the JEDEC standards for RDIMM and LRDIMM. Netlist’s participation in the JEDEC committees that promulgated this standard and Netlist’s signing JEDEC’s License Assurance/Disclosure Form regarding Netlist’s declared standard-essential patents (SEPs) and applications in its portfolio essential to JEDEC’s standards gave rise to certain encumbrances on this portfolio. Among these encumbrances, Netlist is contractually required to “offer[] [a license to the essential portfolio], with compensation, to applicants desiring to utilize the license for the purpose of implementing the JEDEC Standard under reasonable terms and conditions that are demonstrably free of any unfair discrimination.” As discussed below, it is my opinion that the methodology employed by Netlist to determine a range of RAND royalties for this portfolio is sound from evidentiary, policy, and common sense perspectives. Moreover, under the circumstances here, it is my view that Netlist’s approach is preferable to other alternatives.
This is the link to the pdf quoted in previous post:
https://www.criterioninnovation.com/articles/holderman-rand-royalty-for-netlists-jedec-seps.pdf
A. Summary of Netlist’s Approach
Netlist engaged Mr. Sidak to determine a range of royalties for its LRDIMM
SEP portfolio that would be consistent with its RAND commitment to
JEDEC. Mr. Sidak, in turn, applied the logic of the Top-Down Approach
I employed in Innovatio, adapted to the available data.
First, Mr. Sidak determined the incremental value of the feature of
support for LRDIMM. To do so, he used an econometric analysis known as
“hedonic regression.” This technique compares pricing data, which shows
consumers’ willingness to pay, over time, for products with similar, but
varying, feature sets. Differences in feature sets accompany differences in
pricing, from which the regression model calculates what consumers were
willing to pay for each given feature.
The additional features of LRDIMM over the base case have attendant
costs as well, namely, the nine distributed buffers included in a module. To
account for this, Mr. Sidak estimated the cost to the module manufacturer of
incorporating the buffers, about $20. The incremental profit of LRDIMM
over RDIMM, then, was about $80 ($100 – $20).
Then, Mr. Sidak apportioned this $80 incremental profit between Netlist
and other owners of patents declared essential to the LRDIMM standard.
JEDEC maintains a repository of all patents and applications its members
declare essential to its standards. Mr. Sidak searched this JEDEC repository
692 The Criterion Journal on Innovation [ Vo l . 2 : 6 8 7
and identified a total of fifty patents, including Netlist’s seventeen, declared
essential to LRDIMM and valid as of January 1, 2017. Consequently, by
a simple arithmetic patent count, Netlist’s SEP portfolio constituted 34
percent of the patents declared essential to the JEDEC standards. Mr. Sidak
appropriately did not stop there. He ranked all fifty patents by certain
metrics, including forward-citations11 of the fifty identified SEPs listed in
subsequently issued patents and forward-citations exclusive of self-citations,
meaning a particular patent holder citing its own patents in its subsequently
issued patents. Mr. Sidak determined that the Netlist portfolio accounted
for 30.77 to 42.96 percent, or $24.55 to $34.27 of this $80 incremental profit
per module.
Based on this analysis, Mr. Sidak concluded, a license to Netlist’s
LRDIMM-essential portfolio at a royalty in the range of $24.55 per unit
would be consistent with Netlist’s RAND obligation.
Another thought is the bios with potential AND cash/equivalents are the one's with high percent tute support. Based on this idea I would rather NLST move to Nas after a multi billion settlement.
Completely agree, nobody knows the multiple. Also nobody knows how many fund managers/owners and family/friends of such; who can't buy in funds are buying personally. I bet it is a lot.
Love that kind of connecting the dots...rings true.
wow very bullish hits on ask