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.
China to play a big role in 5G.
This is an interesting article:
Reuters Breaking Views - Standard bearers
<<21 December 2017 By Robyn Mak
China will lead the global 5G race. The country will soon set many standards for ultra-fast mobile broadband, boosting domestic outfits at the expense of Nokia and other foreign companies. This is a foretaste of coming battles for technological superiority.
The two big sporting events of 2018, the Winter Olympics in South Korea and the soccer World Cup in Russia, will both be used to showcase 5G. Spectators in Pyeongchang will be able to stream 360 degree virtual-reality videos in real time, and catch self-driving buses, the South Korean telecoms operator KT boasted recently.
For China, launching the first commercial 5G network in 2020 is a key industrial priority. It reckons 5G, which can connect billions of devices and machines, will contribute 2.9 trillion yuan, or $440 billion, of economic value and 8 million jobs by 2030.
Beijing also wants its technology to be included in worldwide standards. To date, new wireless technologies have been dominated by the likes of U.S.-based Qualcomm, Nokia in Finland, and Sweden’s Ericsson. These companies own huge stashes of mobile patents that are used by everyone from Apple to Samsung.
But Chinese outfits, in particular telecoms-equipment makers Huawei and ZTE, are pouring huge sums into researching and developing 5G breakthroughs. Local carriers are already experimenting with network upgrades in the world’s largest mobile market.
So the first draft of global standards, due in 2018, is likely to show lots of Chinese influence. The ultimate specifications will not be finalised until 2020, but Edison Lee at Jefferies reckons Chinese groups, led by Huawei and ZTE, could capture up to 20 percent of essential 5G patents. That would make them the most important force in this generation of technology, after playing a negligible role in 4G. The financial benefits are hard to estimate, but this should help the duo win more business abroad.
Similar battles will follow. In electric vehicles, China is becoming a major player, aided by government-stoked demand. That benefits local suppliers, like car and battery-maker BYD. Likewise, web titans Tencent, Alibaba and Baidu are chasing the likes of Alphabet in artificial intelligence and cloud computing, again with state backing. China’s influence in global tech will keep rising.>>
https://www.breakingviews.com/considered-view/china-will-plant-a-tech-leadership-flag-with-5g/
Typical ALLM BS - Phoenix Biomaterials is out of a house
in Duluth, Georgia:
https://tinyurl.com/y7nynbjj
Do you think that people are still going to fall for this?
Where's Earth's Renewables money? They're working out of
a condo in Newport Beach, California!
<<What I do care about is LTE is primarily responsible for saving me $240,000.00 which is what I recouped in selling my shares in ALLM. He opened my eyes to the insane toxic debt this company is accumulating, among many other critical issues where this company is failing miserably.>>
judge2236:
You're welcome.
bigone, thanks.
But it doens't look like the conference call is helping the stock.
Maybe people are finally starting to realize the old saying:
"Money talks, BS walks."
olddog967, thanks for the info.
Just to add to that, we can see that they started to repurchase
a little in the fourth quarter. On slide 12 we can see that IDCC
repurchased $7.7 million worth of stock in Oct / November of 2017:
http://www.snl.com/interactive/newlookandfeel/4103938/IDCC%20for%20Nasdaq%202017.pdf
What conference call?
I wouldn't expect much because the ones in the past
overpromised and underdelivered.
sorry - I'll have to check the thread's replies more closely.
<<There is no mention that there was an increase in the regular dividend from $0.30 to $0.35.>>
olddog967, according to Dividend.com that increase was back
in September and the 35 cents was paid in October.
I don't see why they have to mention the increase twice:
http://www.dividend.com/dividend-stocks/technology/wireless-communications/idcc-interdigital-inc/
IDCC's website agrees:
http://ir.interdigital.com/Dividend
felix7, good point on the five year chart.
To me, that's what's most important.
Don't forget IDCC's dividends over the past five years - particularly
its $1.50 special dividend in 2012.
I just counted $5.65 in dividends over the last five years - that
includes the $1.5 special dividend in 2012:
http://ir.interdigital.com/Dividend
scruffynyc1, although I'm not Loop or Olddog, I'll chime in anyway.
First of all, I don't think that they're useless patents that are
part of the settlement agreement. In fact, I think that they're
likely quite strong. I'm sure that IDCC has competent enough
engineers to pick strong enough patents with relatively long
expiration dates for transfer.
That could definitely strengthen IDCC's negotiating position
for the holdouts like ZTE on futurelicenses - don't
forget ZTE has only been ruled by a jury to infringe on
patents that have already expired. No doubt that ZTE is
liable for this. But the future is more important that the
past because that's what stock prices primarily trade on.
I don't think that you're missing anything.
I know that Merritt recently said that these things are very
difficult between balancing the future against the past.
I've seen it with some other IP companies like Rambus as well.
BUT, what's most important, is that securing licenses like
this (with more to come like ZTE, etc.) with 5G licenses
is very good for IDCC's future.
JimLur, thanks - going from the midpoints of today's announcement,
I'm thinking that InterDigital will be receiving about $8 million /
quarter in recurring revenue, or about $32 million per year.
That's a nice boost to IDCC's business.
Anyone else see it differently?
<<Better yet...who would you trust? >>
Magmar, thanks for your usual excellent analysis.
It looks like the market is casting their vote on "trust"
and it doesn't look promising for ALLM longs.
<<Glad I missed boarding the "Lucitania".>>
Stridinggod, excellent analogy.
The sinking of the Lusitania is indeed similar to the ALLM
ship going down. There were pleanty of warnings in both
situations.
Those who were paying attention and not falling for the false
promises of luxurious lifestyle are the ones who avoided the
perils of both situations.
Don't forget that the Lusitaina was a competitor to the Titanic -
it was run by the Cunard Line. Both ships (Titanic and Lusitania)
were luxury cruise liners!!
And here's the warning:
<<Notice!
Travellers intending to embark on the Atlantic voyage are reminded that a state of war exists between Germany and her allies and Great Britain and her allies; that the zone of war includes the waters adjacent to the British Isles; that, in accordance with formal notice given by the Imperial German Government, vessels flying the flag of Great Britain, or any of her allies, are liable to destruction in those waters and that travellers sailing in the war zone on ships of Great Britain or her allies do so at their own risk.
Imperial German Embassy
Washington, D. C., April 22, 1915>>
http://www.historywiz.com/lusitanianote.htm
So anyone reading this board saw many similar notices by smart posters
like Magmar, etc. Too bad that some, but probably not enough, heeded
to those warnings!
Just FYI - everyone here knows about IDCC's struggles
as a relatively small innovation / patent company.
But I also remember this one well in Rambus:
<<Law360, San Diego (January 27, 2012)
USPTO Wipes Out Key Rambus DRAM Patent>>
https://www.law360.com/articles/304225/uspto-wipes-out-key-rambus-dram-patent
Rambus settled on the cheap with NVIDIA due to the above shortly after
the above:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/5526/rambus-and-nvidia-bury-the-hatchet
I am quite sure that Rambus' settlement negotiations would have been
a lot stronger if the PTO's PTAB didn't get in the way because it took
the CAFC quite some time to write the PTAB's wrong.
This was a day late and a dollar short, to put it mildly:
<<On January 24, 2012, a USPTO appeals board declared the third of three patents known as the "Barth patents" invalid. The first two had been declared invalid in September 2011. Rambus had used these patents to win infringement lawsuits against Nvidia Corp (NVDA.O) and Hewlett-Packard (HPQ.N).[17]
On June 28, 2013, The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the USPTO and the '109 Barth patent's validity was reinstated:
"In conclusion, the Board’s determination that all 25 claims of the ’109 Patent are invalid as anticipated by Farmwald is not supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, this court reverses.">>
http://www.mololamken.com/assets/htmldocuments/Rambus%20109%20Opinion.pdf.PDF
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambus
<<The court’s newest member, Justice Neil Gorsuch, appeared bothered by how far the government could go in putting conditions on patents. He asked if the government could even stack the agency review board with judges it likes.>>
olddog967, thanks.
This appears to be going along the lines of liberal v. conservative.
After Justice Scalia died last year many thought that the SC would lose
its weight on the conservative side. But Justice Gorsuch was only
recently nominated by President Trump.
Maybe he'll tip the scales in favor of small (and not so small in
Abbvie and Qualcomm) patent owners by siding in favor of Oil States?
Patent Application - US 13/799,432
What's going on with ALLM's patent application?
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=135151500
Please explain how this FUBAR above can happen to a company that's
on the cusp of greatness.
Two claims have been cancelled and the other two (there's only four)
aren't even supported by the written description.
To add insult to injury, ALLM's patent attorney couldn't even
see the PTO's rejection letter because his address isn't even
valid anymore. What the heck is that all about?
Only an insider would defend what these clowns are doing.
<<BTW, love the way you say it will be installed at your facility in Florida, slyly omitting mentioning the actual Vero Beach plant site. That way, if you don't buy it you can always say..."Well, I never explicitly said the Vero plant site".>>
Magmar, good point - their legerdemain is getting more than tiring,
it's actually getting nauseating.
And they still think that they can get away with this sleight of hand
wordplay.
They might think that they're so smart that they can get away with
duplicity.
But guess what ALLM - look at your LOUSY stock price!
You're fooling nobody right now!!
Magmar, I find it interesting that the patent application
that you cited (US 13/799,432) claims 1 & 3 were cancelled
and claims 2 & 4 were rejected.
And since that patent application only has four claims, it
looks like it's not going to be granted at all unless there's
some serious amendments to claims 2 & 4. However, one of
those claims' weaknesses is that they're not supported by
the written description. That's a violation of fundamental
patent law - the claims must be supported by the written
description.
Check the PTO's PAIR to see what I mean - search under application
# 13/799,432 and follow the communications with the examiner
under "image file wrapper":
https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair
I also found it interesting that the last communication between
the patent office and ALLM's attorney was "returned to sender."
It was sent back to the PTO because it was undeliverable!
What is this amateur hour?
Check the 10-Q - the bottom of page 18 shows that NO money has been
raised for the Vero Plant - it's as clear as day:
https://www.otcmarkets.com/edgar/GetFilingPdf?FilingID=12380343
So now they throw BS at everyone and state they're mad at the
decaying feedstock.
This summarizes ALLM well:
This is the same exact thing as what's in the 10-Q as posted in my immediately prior post. And that 10-Q clearly states that they raised NOTHING.
<<Alliance BioEnergy Plus, Inc. subsidiary seeks to raise $10 million to secure and renovate closed Florida biofuel facility for enhanced production of environmentally friendly fuels and products
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla., March 23, 2017 /PRNewswire/ -- Alliance Bio-Products, Inc. (Bio-Products), a subsidiary of Alliance BioEnergy Plus, Inc. (OTCQB:ALLM), today announced its filing of a Regulation D (506(c)) offering with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The purpose of the filing is to secure funds through accredited investors for the purchase of a bioethanol plant in Southeast Florida that would enable the Company to increase production capacity and profitability of its sustainable, environmentally friendly alternative to petroleum-based fuels and other products through its patented Cellulose to Sugar (CTS) conversion process.
Bio-Products' 506c offering will allow the company to sell 1,000,000 shares of its securities to accredited investors. The Company will offer 8% Convertible Preferred Stock at $10 per share, with a preferred minimum investment of $5,000. The offering will be conducted on a best efforts basis through the Company's website, where the Private Placement Memorandum and Accredited Investor Questionnaire are located.>>
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/alliance-bio-products-inc-announces-filing-of-506c-to-raise-funds-for-new-cellulosic-ethanol-production-plant-300428402.html
And here's how we clearly know that the $10,000,000 offering is
through the 506(c) offering. This is the same exact thing
as what's in the 10-Q as posted in my immediately prior post.
And that 10-Q clearly states that they raised NOTHING.
<<Alliance BioEnergy Plus, Inc. subsidiary seeks to raise $10 million to secure and renovate closed Florida biofuel facility for enhanced production of environmentally friendly fuels and products
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla., March 23, 2017 /PRNewswire/ -- Alliance Bio-Products, Inc. (Bio-Products), a subsidiary of Alliance BioEnergy Plus, Inc. (OTCQB:ALLM), today announced its filing of a Regulation D (506(c)) offering with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The purpose of the filing is to secure funds through accredited investors for the purchase of a bioethanol plant in Southeast Florida that would enable the Company to increase production capacity and profitability of its sustainable, environmentally friendly alternative to petroleum-based fuels and other products through its patented Cellulose to Sugar (CTS) conversion process.
Bio-Products' 506c offering will allow the company to sell 1,000,000 shares of its securities to accredited investors. The Company will offer 8% Convertible Preferred Stock at $10 per share, with a preferred minimum investment of $5,000. The offering will be conducted on a best efforts basis through the Company's website, where the Private Placement Memorandum and Accredited Investor Questionnaire are located.>>
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/alliance-bio-products-inc-announces-filing-of-506c-to-raise-funds-for-new-cellulosic-ethanol-production-plant-300428402.html
NO - you're WRONG.
It clearly states that they were part of a 506 offing, which
is most likely 506(b).
And in 506(b) there can be 35 unaccredited investors!
IF it was 506(c) it would have been marketed like this becuse
marketing is legal in 506(c) offerings.
Too bad they've raised NOTHING in this 506(c) offering that
is for the Vero Beach plant. This is clearly from ALLM's
marketing materials - the FAQs are at the bottom:
FAQs
What is a 506(c) offering?
506(c) allows companies to offer and sell securities to institutional or accredited investors. In comparison to traditional registered offerings, a 506(c) offering allows companies in earlier stages of development to raise money more cost-effectively.
https://www.transfer.ly/invest/alliance-bio-products
<<Any monies raised in a 506(c) offering must come from "accredited investors">>
More duplicity. Don't try to confuse things.
ALLM has raised NOTHING in from the 506(c) offering.
My posts have already made that clear.
Now if you want prove anything (instead of playing games), show the
board link that shows the same type of cohesive, uninterrupted
paragraph that I provided that REFUTES what I already proved.
Show us something that says ALLM raised money in their 506(c)
offering - you can't because it doesn't exist!
Alitrate Partners, this shows that 506(c) offerings can
be marketed and must only be sold to accredited investors:
<<Under Rule 506(c), a company can broadly solicit and generally advertise the offering, but still be deemed to be undertaking a private offering within Section 4(a)(2) if:
The investors in the offering are all accredited investors; and
The company has taken reasonable steps to verify that its investors are accredited investors, which could include reviewing documentation, such as W-2s, tax returns, bank and brokerage statements, credit reports and the like.>>
https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/answers-rule506htm.html
And here's how we clearly know that the $10,000,000 offering is
through the 506(c) offering. This is the same exact thing
as what's in the 10-Q as posted in my immediately prior post.
And that 10-Q clearly states that they raised NOTHING.
<<Alliance BioEnergy Plus, Inc. subsidiary seeks to raise $10 million to secure and renovate closed Florida biofuel facility for enhanced production of environmentally friendly fuels and products
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla., March 23, 2017 /PRNewswire/ -- Alliance Bio-Products, Inc. (Bio-Products), a subsidiary of Alliance BioEnergy Plus, Inc. (OTCQB:ALLM), today announced its filing of a Regulation D (506(c)) offering with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The purpose of the filing is to secure funds through accredited investors for the purchase of a bioethanol plant in Southeast Florida that would enable the Company to increase production capacity and profitability of its sustainable, environmentally friendly alternative to petroleum-based fuels and other products through its patented Cellulose to Sugar (CTS) conversion process.
Bio-Products' 506c offering will allow the company to sell 1,000,000 shares of its securities to accredited investors. The Company will offer 8% Convertible Preferred Stock at $10 per share, with a preferred minimum investment of $5,000. The offering will be conducted on a best efforts basis through the Company's website, where the Private Placement Memorandum and Accredited Investor Questionnaire are located.>>
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/alliance-bio-products-inc-announces-filing-of-506c-to-raise-funds-for-new-cellulosic-ethanol-production-plant-300428402.html
Valeria123 - check the mom & pops who were snookered
three years ago - they're the ones who bought at 75 cents -
it's towards the bottom of the linked document:
<<ITEM 2. UNREGISTERED SALES OF EQUITY SECURITIES
Below is a list of securities sold by us from January 1, 2014 through September 30, 2014 which were not registered under the Securities Act....>>
https://www.otcmarkets.com/edgar/GetFilingHtml?FilingID=10305762
How do you think they feel about having their hard earned money
vanish by 85%?
How do you think they feel by being diluted by additional offerings
this year down to 20 cents?
Don't forget, they were being told at the contemporaneous point and
time that they were getting a great "bargain" at 75 cents. They were
being told that the stock would go the moon.
<<Through its private offerings, the Company raised $3,079,004 for the year ended December 31, 2016, and an additional $987,500 through the date of filing.>>
Here are the mom & pops that you're referring to - they don't need
to be accredited investors AND they've been getting snookered to
buy stock at what they're told are discounted prices. It started
a few years ago at 75 cents and it's been going down and down until
the most recently filing where they're allowed to buy at 20 cents.
They're duped into thinking that it's a bargain, but the stock keeps
on going down?
When will the insanity end??
Look at page 25 to see which mom & pops have been buying this year at 20 cents:
https://www.otcmarkets.com/edgar/GetFilingHtml?FilingID=12380343
Do you know any of them?
Their "bargain" investment is now down by 55% - Ouch!
PS: I say mom & pops because they're the unsophisticated investors.
Accredited investors (who were smart enough to accrue some real
wealth) are supposed to be more sophisticated. They're supposed
to be similar to institutional investors who invest other people's
money for a living
Many mom & pops don't know what they're doing - that's why they're
prayed on by penny stock pumpers.
It's clearly obvious by now that the accredited / institutional
investors don't want anything to do with this CTS technology!
<<Through its private offerings, the Company raised $3,079,004 for the year ended December 31, 2016, and an additional $987,500 through the date of filing.>>
Exactly - and that has NOTHING to do with the 506(c) filing that's
especially for sophisticated investors. What you mentioned above
is the money raised from mom & pop. As I said here before, you
need a minimum net worth and income to be an accredited investor -
check here:
<<Can anyone invest in Alliance Bio-Products, Inc.?
A 506(c) offering is open only to accredited investors. To confirm yourself as an accredited investor, please fill out the Accredited Investor Questionnaire by clicking the button on this page. If you click “Invest Now” you will be asked questions to help determine your maximum investment amount.>>
https://www.transfer.ly/invest/alliance-bio-products
Here are the requirements:
<<United States[edit]
In the United States, to be considered an accredited investor, one must have a net worth of at least $1,000,000, excluding the value of one's primary residence, or have income at least $200,000 each year for the last two years (or $300,000 combined income if married) and have the expectation to make the same amount this year. The term "accredited investor" is defined in Rule 501 of Regulation D of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as:>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accredited_investor
Not a penny has been raised for the Vero plant - this is
from page 18 from the 10-Q that was posted the other day:
<<ALLIANCE BIO-PRODUCTS, INC.
Alliance Bio-Products, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, was created for the purpose of acquiring and operating a plant for the installation of the Company’s patented CTS process....
...As of this date, no units have been sold through the offering and the first initial deposit, in the amount of $250,000, has been refunded to the subsidiary>.>
https://www.otcmarkets.com/edgar/GetFilingPdf?FilingID=12380343
How can ALLM buy anything without any money?
They have the gall to say it's the seller's problem with the feedstock / yard waste, etc.
BUT the real problem is that ALLM hasn't raised a penny!
<<Looks like Danny boy can responded to the news article but can't keep investors informed.
ALLM on it's way to 0.00 >>
MikeSS, it's nice to have more than only one or two rational voices
on this board.
Too bad De Leige duped his investors by promising regular conference
conference calls with Q&A.
Too bad a lot of people bought his BS hook, line and sinker!
vegas, thanks.
<<Why would he have a BUY rating on a company about to experience a serious EPS haircut according to his estimates?>>
loophole73, good question.
Another thing that I don't understand are his estimates.
For example, last quarter's EPS was $1 per share with $88.5
million in recurring revenue and $97.3 million in total
revenue. Assuming the recurring revenue is relatively constant
with IDCC and the expenses are as well, that would mean that
recurring EPS should be about 90 cents per quarter = $3.60 per
year in recurring EPS. That's well above the $1.75 in estimates
by B Riley.
This could have to do with the new FASB accounting rules. But
I'm not sure how the analyst will know the implications until
they actually see what InterDigital reports in the next calender
year.
Be careful? About what - being right in many of my
posts that were often criticized by ALLM supporters?
Show the board what ALLM's management said was going
to happen actually happened.
Good luck with that!
These guys aren't reliable businessmen - their ratio of
over-promising and not delivering is off the charts.
Not a penny has been raised for the Vero plant - this is
from page 18 from today's 10-Q:
<<ALLIANCE BIO-PRODUCTS, INC.
Alliance Bio-Products, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, was created for the purpose of acquiring and operating a plant for the installation of the Company’s patented CTS process....
...As of this date, no units have been sold through the offering and the first initial deposit, in the amount of $250,000, has been refunded to the subsidiary>.>
https://www.otcmarkets.com/edgar/GetFilingPdf?FilingID=12380343
"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/abrahamlin110340.html
It looks like De Liege and his cronies were looking to fool some of the people all of the time. And unfortunately, up until now, it looks like they've accomplished that.
He certainly didn't fool all of us (like Magmar and a couple of others)
all of the time.
Has deal to buy defunct INEOS plant collapsed?
Here's the entire article, thanks to MikeSS:
http://veronews.com/2017/11/09/deal-buy-defunct-ineos-plant-collapsed/
MikeSS, I'm shocked - I can't believe it - NOT!
As predicted, the deal collapsed.
And also as predicted, De Liege is NOT responding to inquiries.
How will the insiders spin this one?
That the ColUmbia deal is back in play?
What a joke!
<<you think the patents are now expired and worthless.>>
mickeybritt, I know that the patents have expired.
YOU should know that as well.
And you should also know that's why the ITC case was dropped - because
there's no relief because there's no ability to enjoin expired
patents. The only remedy at the ITC is injunctions and mandatory
licensing during appeals for valid and infringed patents that haven't
expired yet.
With the above being said, I don't think that the "power ramp up" patents are worthless. The past damages can have a lot of value.
Maybe you misinterpreted what I said here:
<<In my view, the fact that ZTE is at the mercy of a jury on past
damages isn't an enviable position for them to be in.>>
I should have said that the fact that ZTE is at the mercy of a
jury on past damages on valid and infringed patents (although
expired) isn't an enviable position for ZTE to be in.
<<ZTE will sign as will others unless they want to go to litigation with IDCC using the follow on patents to the two the CAFC just affirmed.>>
my3sons87, I'm not sure what you mean by that.
Here's the parent case text below of the '847 patent which shows a priority date of June 27, 1996.
That means that any continuation patents of the "power ramp up" family
take that same priority date. So, in essence, we can see that anything
related to the "power ramp up" patents expired on June 27, 2016 because
of the 20 year lifespan of patents.
I'm very glad that IDCC won on these patents, it's just that they
can only claim past damages and not future injunctions on an expired
patent family.
In my view, the fact that ZTE is at the mercy of a jury on past
damages isn't an enviable position for them to be in.
<<Parent Case Text
CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION
This application is a continuation of application Ser. No. 10/866,851, filed Jun. 14, 2004, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,117,004 which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 10/400,343, filed Mar. 26, 2003, which issued on Jan. 4, 2005 as U.S. Pat. No. 6,839,567, which is a continuation of Ser. No. 10/086,320, filed Mar. 1, 2002, which issued on May 27, 2003 as U.S. Pat. No. 6,571,105; which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 09/721,034, filed Nov. 22, 2000, which issued on Dec. 10, 2002 as U.S. Pat. No. 6,493,563; which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 09/003,104, filed Jan. 6, 1998, which issued on Jan. 30, 2001 as U.S. Pat. No. 6,181,949; which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 08/670,162, filed on Jun. 27, 1996, which issued on Nov. 24, 1998 as U.S. Pat. No. 5,841,768; which applications and patents are incorporated herein by reference.>>
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7,286,847.PN.&OS=PN/7,286,847&RS=PN/7,286,847
Firerocket777, I'm confused as well.
There was even a post (the earliest one) that said that
the deceased had already died. But the next post (six weeks
later) had the already deceased writing a post from his death
bed.
Maybe one of the relatives posted his hand written note (from
his deathbed) on this board?
Maybe not?
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/Profile.aspx?user=616613