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.
Alpha's favorite topic when the rest of the shtick runs dry - dilution!
We lose $.005 on an OTC penny stock, yet he will not stop talking about it. Trust me, that's not why people aren't buying, despite your repeated attempts here.
Upcoming:
1) A few decisions - MRMD sale, dilution, restructuring with note holders (never got confirmation from whoever claimed they had additional info about the note holders).
2) If dilution, we lose half a cent up to $.008 or so.
3) If sale of MRMD, we probably lose $.003.
4) No long cares, still. The dilution scaries are irrelevant to WDDD's long-term vision of either a settlement or a trip to the courts.
Why don't I buy more at $.037? I will, waiting on funds to clear. Thanks for the advice.
Like I asked - any update on the bungie response filing?
Oops!
Any update on the response brief?
Huge day today. Should have pulled the trigger on the low .03s. We won't see that for a few weeks at least imo, and wouldn't be surprised if $0.05+ becomes the support floor.
GL today everyone. You may miss out trying to capture small gains.
Yup - he repeatedly ignores the fact that following the conservative rules of GAAP, WDDD has done their due diligence by mentioning possible dilution to raise capital for notes in default.
Further mentioning of selling MRMD - which would have a smaller negative effect on the PPS of WDDD - is not necessary because the effect on the shareholders would be immaterial (or to a general investor) and this outcome is actually slightly more favorable (i.e. they disclosed the more negative decision already). No further disclosure is needed.
Dilution is more likely than selling MRMD imho. But saying that they can't sell MRMD is laughable and used as a scare tactic.
And for the 7th(?) time, dilution is so irrelevant to a long investor it's not even worth mentioning except to profit off (cough cough). Everyone knows this stock is heading toward .005 or .30+. The middle ground is incredibly unlikely.
WDDD finishes green on the day....no Alpha, you're right though.
It's going on the block button for me....we cannot keep having the same arguments, and I really hope as AlphaInvestor8 continues to point out the risks of WDDD that people can have the access to the commentary rebutting his points and showing that those risks are important, but have to be viewed in context and without the bias attached to them, as to get the entire picture with context.
GL to all reading this board. Do your own due diligence. If you think you're investing in a stock with no risks...well I don't know what to tell you.
You are wrong. WDDD still has the option of selling the MRMD stake to raise capital.
It would actually be more favorable for their shareholders for them to do so (probably a smaller reduction in PPS), so their disclosures were adequate/conservative enough for the 10Q, even though that's a decision for Kidrin and their auditor.
I have mentioned how the dilution doesn't matter to anyone long here every single time you bring it up. Maybe not because I've gotten tired of it.
This stock is either going to be worth $0.005 or $0.30+. Less than a cent dilution is so irrelevant it's laughable.
First of all, it doesn't really even matter to most WDDD retail investors that there is going to be less than a cent of dilution. Second, the method of raising $900k (whatever it is) is not material enough of a difference for the average investor to care where they get it from. A sale of MRMD would also reduce the intrinsic value of WDDD and likely have a reductionary effect on the PPS. $900k in itself may be material to WDDD but funding it via offering vs sale of investment doesn't matter.
This is such an irrelevant subject for any long term investor.
Are you really saying there's no chance that the MRMD stock being sold is a possibility rather than dilution?
While I agree it is more likely for dilution (10Q), WDDD 100% has the option and ability to use the sale from proceeds.
Stop acting like you know what they're going to do.
He posted Wallach references that were in the last few months, even weeks. As events happen, things change.
Some great backup info on a PTAB hearing in Apr 2017:
ZitoVault is represented by Michael Casey and Wayne Helge of Davidson Berquist Jackson & Gowdey LLP.
Do you really think Susman would have wasted millions of dollars by letting an unqualified firm handle the CAFC case if they really believed the CAFC decision was a critical part of WDDD's chances?
Again, I trust Susman more than anyone here. If they are ok with not being the lead on the CAFC, so am I.
Won't even acknowledge your own contradiction on two quotes I placed right next to each other coming directly from the same post. Smh.
I guess I didn't clarify my question well enough. I'll keep looking for clarification on my own.
Thanks for the help.
Board - I'm working on a detailed analysis of the PTAB review and claims. I'll post it when I'm finished.
I apologize for all of the clutter I've created over the past couple days. Mods, feel free to delete any of those posts.
22
Wait I'm confused on some of my research - all i want is an answer here.
That did not answer my question:
That article references two of the patents. Where are patent 998's eight claims?
The reason Kidrin said SIX claims is in reference to the SIX claims on the two patents without 998.
Those two patents overlap with overlapping claims - why are those listed but not 998's claims if they are also overlapping?
Still haven't answered my question.
This is outrageous. I literally just told you I have read through the article, Kidrin's quotes, patents, and PTAB rulings and still don't understand where patent 998's claims went, because 8 of them were validated and are not made reference to in the article.
I don't understand why you're fighting me on this. I don't have the answer.
I just want to know, I thought you would have the answer as you know more than we do. If you don't, just say so.
What about patent 998? I'm genuinely curious.
Wait so you'll only answer questions when it speaks to the negatives of WDDD?
Again, where are patent 998's claims represented in that article?
11 claims....
Also, anyone selling? Lol. The commentary with Betainvestor has reminded me that I need to pick up new shares soon. The reward on the risk is too high here for the PPS.
Why do you keep dodging my question about patent 998? I know you read it.
You keep insisting as a matter of "FACT" (in your own words) that there are only 6 claims yet patent 998's results were not yet mentioned in the direct quote you say there are only 6.
I'm still curious - do you know why patent 998's claims are not mentioned by that article/Kidrin? The 6 claims you mention as quoted by Kidrin seem to be the 6 claims from patents 558 and 690 (matches up perfectly and is also described in the article as the 6 claims from those two patents). THe 6 patents do NOT include the 8 claims validated by the PTAB on patent 998.
If you have any light on this, I'm still a bit confused on it. Thanks.
If you can with 100% certainty say the additional 8 claims from patent 998 are all simply replicates of the 6 claims on the other two patents, I'll believe you until I have enough time to fully read the PTAB rulings. But even in that case, there are an additional two claims on 998 missing.
[QUOTE]
Stock has been below $0.05 since 2015. We actually got a little bit of a spike from the PTAB ruling.
My last question before I re-read the PTAB rulings:
What happened to the claims of 998? There were 12 different claims (2, 3, 7, 8, 11, 12, 16, and 18) validated on this patent in the PTAB ruling posted.
Yet in Kidrin's quote in which he stated that they will proceed with their 6 claims, which Alpha quoted, only makes reference to the 6 claims from patents 558 and 690.
So why were the 8 claims from 998 left out of that article even though they were ruled on by the PTAB?
From what I have read so far, the 6 independent claims that Thomas Kidrin speaks to in the MarketWired have to do with the 690 and 558 patents.
"Claims 4, 8, 13, and 16 of Patent 7,181,690 B1 - IPR2015-01268 and claims 5 and 7 of Patent 7,493,558 B2 - IPR2015-01269."
"The validation of these six claims by the USPTO PTAB enables Worlds to resume our Federal court case against Activision Blizzard et al as well as pursue other infringement suits."
The 998 patent is completely ignored in this article.
Instead of you just saying these things and that the claims are identical, you should probably at least use direct quotes from the rulings to prove it. If the claims are identical, they should be the same claim number.
HOWEVER, if you read the articles and such online (http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/uspto-review-validates-6-worlds-inc-patent-claims-multi-player-online-gaming-technology-otcqb-wddd-2180066.htm), they claim there are only SIX validated claims, coming from the second two patents.
Mysteriously, none from the first patent show up on these articles. I will dig deeper.
From the ruling, there are a grand total of 11 independent claims remaining in my opinion:
"Petitioner, however, has not shown that Durward, Marathon, and Tracey render obvious claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 11, 12, 16, and 18 of the ’998 patent."
Patent 998, "System and method for enabling users to interact in a virtual space" = 8 claims
"Petitioner, however, has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 5 and 7 of the ’558 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Funkhouser and Funkhouser ’93."
Patent 558 = 2 claims (1 new - claim 5)
"Petitioner, however, has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 4, 8, 13, and 16 of the ’690 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Funkhouser and Funkhouser ’93."
Patent 690 = 4 claims (2 new - claims 4 and 13)
Little confused here....from the PTAB ruling:
Patent 8145998
- New claims = 2, 3, 7, 8, 11-18
Patent 7493558
- Repeating claims = 7
- New claims = 5
Patent 7181690
- Repeating claims = 8, 13, 16
- New claims = 4
--------------------------------------------
My plan is to read and dissect the PTAB ruling sometime this weekend. A lot to sift through.
Would you mind sharing your analysis of this? I did some research about of F/RANDs but still am not 100% clear on the direct impact on WDDD v ATVI.
Seems like a F/RAND agreement would contrast the article posted suggesting 7%+ royalties, as that would be excessive.
There are numerous great posts on this board regarding the potential damages WDDD could reach. Unfortunately they are no longer stickied.
One has to assume, if the main technology Worlds speaks of - the virtual environment of P2P online play - is validated, they will get a significant chunk of royalties because of sheer inability of a video game to run without their technology.
Feel free to go back and take a look; $300M was somewhere on the lower side of the potential damages if I recall correctly.