All of us did. What a colossal waste of several years of our lives and so much money. Now every phone transitions seamlessly between wifi and cellular without so much as a blip.

Well friends it has been a long ride. I've invested countless hours and many dollars into this venture. Lots of lessons learned.

The receiver did what he could. There was no assets to move forward with anything. Can't get blood out of a stone. He, like many folks will not be reimbursed for his time or effort. He made a number of public filings that you can read if you like - nothing particularly noteworthy.

Best of wishes in all your future investing endeavors.

The patent review process from Google closed May 22nd. I don't know that anyone other than the receiver could appoint someone to submit details about the Calypso patents anyhow. I am also not sure that our patents met the requirements. So what do you other fellow longs have in mind?

I used to have a paid subscription but dropped it once the stock was stale. I do still maintain the company website on my own dime and on occasion, I speak to the receiver who is an intelligent, down to earth, reasonable man.

I have a few hundred email addresses for other shareholders. I don't know who still has stock or not or how much the have. A list of who owns what should be available from the bogus "shareholder vote" that happened down in Texas - I believe that is public information but wouldn't know how to get my hands on it as I haven't talked to any of the previous board in a long time.

Hello Folks - been a long time I know. I check back every once in a while to see how things are going or not going.

Google announced that it will be taking open application for patents that are for sale. A well crafted application may result in a purchase.

http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/www.google.com/en/us/patents/licensing/doc/patent-palooza-more-information.pdf

I'm not sure if we meet all the legal requirements or not, however if we do it may be a way to get some value out of the patent yet. I've forwarded this information to the receiver.

The receiver called me a few weeks back and let me know that they are preparing some information to be posted on the website. Mark Gentile did say that there was a filling with the court earlier this year.

Has anyone received any emails or managed to reach Mark Gentile on the phone?

DC is getting mostly rain this morning so it shouldn't be canceled.

Befitting that they should list a trash basket as prior art.... lol... made me smile this morning.

With the heavy snow this morning and the fact the the court posts audio clips of all the hearings, I opted not to take the trip down to DC (4 hour drive for me without bad weather). Hopefully we have some other feet on the ground in the courtroom. If not, the audio will be available pretty quickly.

I pray that it goes well.

Excellent - look forward to seeing some fellow longs there.

What a great document. Nice find Highrider.

I'm planning on being there as well so I'll report to ya'll what happens.

Yes we have some very knowledgeable posters on this forum.

I'm not even going to respond to that other stuff.

Believe me I'm not bringing it up.

Please let's not go there. I know it's like your favorite thing to do but I think there was enough poo on all sides at the receivership debacle.

I am a highly technical person and there were few folks there that impressed me technically, including both sets of attorneys, however I wouldn't say that they were "very unprepared". I would say that none of the CLYW attorney's were good at taking technical concepts and communicating them directly and easily to the court.

On several occasions during the trial, I passed notes to the CLYW attorneys with technical points and observations that needed to be made. Like I said, they could have benefited by having a technical consultant there during several of the term constructions but I wouldn't throw them under the bus and say they were "completely unprepared" because that would not be true.

CLYW attorney's could have definitely benefited from having a technical expert with them in the court room. This hurt them in the discussion regarding pre-established vicinity range more than anywhere else. Regardless, CLYW attorney's presented the information they had well and were not bumbling all over themselves or anything. It wasn't a poor showing for CLYW - certainly not like the poo-slinging fest over receivership.

I suppose everyone is entitled to their opinion - even those who were not present and can provide no evidence of their positions.

I was there in person and have provided a transcript (word for word in many cases) of exactly what I observed. I welcome you to cite the actual transcript of the court proceedings if my account isn't accurate enough for you.

Myself and many of those who read through the court documents did not foresee the Judge ruling with T-mobile on "pre-established vicinity range" which is the most important term that was discussed at the marksman. If you go back and review the posting history from that time, many of us longs were optimistic.

Here is the court website if you'd like to contact them and purchase an official transcript:

http://www.txed.uscourts.gov/page1.shtml?location=info:division&division=marshall

They did have their game on that day, however they could have done a better job presenting some of the technical points. The judge also had a consultant with him to interpret much of what was being discussed and I'd imagine that some of the judges opinions regarding this technology were colored by that consultant.

Even still, the Judge was very sharp and intelligent and asked very good questions of both sides - which I documented in my transcript.

An actual transcript of the Texas marksman hearing is available and you can contact the court if you'd like to purchase a copy.

To clear up any confusion and remind posters on this forum what actually happened, a number of shareholders bonded together and paid for my flight ticket to go down and take notes of the Marksman hearing. I got permission from the Judge and took notes of the entire hearing on my iPad which I then provided to the forum:

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=79418582

This was not a "second-hand recollection" but a first-hand transcript and account of what I saw and heard as fast is I could type. I also responded with about 50 additional posts answering questions from everyone which are all available on this forum if anyone would like to read them.

Tmobile's attorneys did not make CLYW's attorney's look like idiots. Both sides were quite respectful of the other and obviously different on most of the claim construction terms. CLYW's attorney's did not have a technical resource with them which resulted in some loss of ground on several of the terms but they were well prepared otherwise.

Any news on whether or not we can attend the oral arguments. I'd like to be there if possible to record the events as I did in Texas for the markman hearing if possible.

I might take off work and drive down to be in attendance. Haven't been to one of these before. Any thoughts about whether or not I'd be permitted to attend as a shareholder?

Thank you always for your input and contribution to this community!

The only person who's an idiot is the one that doesn't ask questions. There are enough of us longs around here with years of Calypso experience that is useless outside of this forum so we are happy to share.

There is very little chance that this company will be reformed. My thought is that the patent will probably be auctioned off to the highest bidder if we win the patent case. There are literally hundreds of companies infringing on it and citing it as prior art without ever having paid a dime in licensing fees. Anyone with deep pockets who ends up with this patent is going to be able to milk the entire industry with it.

You are not alone in feeling like a fool. Many folks were duped into investing into this stock with the hopes of very quick turn around profits. The fundamentals were never there for this company. They didn't have a stable management team, assets, a functioning product, investment, completed financials or really anything that would lead the average investor to give this little company even a second glance. It always was a crap shot at best which is a real shame because I believe in the patent and share your frustration that it hasn't seen the light of day.

So about actually seeing a payout. First thing is that this court has to rule in our favor and remand the case back down for trial. Then we have to have the trial and we have to do a good job of explaining a technical patent to folks who don't want to be sitting on a jury in the first place.

Then if we win, there may be appeals to contend with.

Assuming all of that goes well and Drago doesn't decide to stop financing the legal effort, there may be an award to divvy up.

At this point, the receiver's job will be do dispense the assets. There is a long line of folks standing around holding bags - the chief of which will be Drago and his legal team which I am sure have many millions of dollars in legal fees racked up already.

So if there is anything left for shareholders (and the receiver was instructed to maximize value for shareholders) then we'd receive some sort of payout in the form of a dismemberment or dividend or whatever. This will show up in your brokerage account.

We are probably still years away from seeing this happen realistically.

Seriously though here is some info from their FAQ regarding Airave:

Do wireless calls initiated on the Sprint AIRAVE continue once the user leaves the AIRAVE coverage area?
Calls that originate on the AIRAVE will automatically try to transfer, hand-off, to the Nationwide Sprint Network if a strong network signal is available to transfer to. Hand-off is not guaranteed due to Network availability, signal strength, and interference.

Does a wireless call that starts outside of the Sprint AIRAVE coverage area transfer to the AIRAVE when the user enters the coverage area?
No. Calls that are initiated on the Nationwide Sprint Network will continue on the Nationwide Sprint Network, even though you may be within the AIRAVE coverage area.

So it looks like the answer is yes - they do hand off. And yes they infringe.

Only infringes if it works - lol

Yup. Been in this thing for a long time now. Really would love to see a victory for longs.

It's been awhile since I refreshed the court docks sticky for folks who aren't on here all the time or are new. I'll do what I can to get it updated this weekend. Thanks for your input highrider as always - we are so close.

There have been some really good contributions on this forum to the discussion. I hope we see our day in court.

I agree that our response was well written and explains the errors in the lower courts decisions. Lets hope these judges think so too.

thank you for posting this bacatcha

Posting about your posts getting removed is technically off topic. As long as a post is about the company or some issue surrounding the company, it's officers, it's business, the patents, the suit - you are generally going to be OK. You can't attack another poster directly or be disrespectful to other posters - regardless of how much you may disagree with their opinions.

Having been at the marksman hearing in person, I can definitely say that the judge was no dummy. He did have some difficulty at times understand the technical nuances of both sides. The Judge had a technical consultant in the court room who was taking detailed information down during the whole course of the hearing. I had a few minutes to talk with the consultant outside of the courtroom before the trial, but it wasn't long enough to get a good feel of his technical prowess with this type of technology. I suspect that the judge relied heavily on his input though.

wifi calling is not seamless switching and does not infringe on our patent

Same ol Same ol... lets see what the jury decides.

Yeah that's probably what will end up happening.

At the time there wasn't "Downloadable apps", heck there was only one or two "smartphones" out there running Windows Mobile (CE) and Nokia's OS.

Apple iOS and Android didn't come out till 2007 and 2008 respectively.

There are plenty of apps out there now that offer wireless calling. Seamless mobility is more of a chip or OS related feature. It could be done via an application to, but that company would need A LOT of infrastructure to handle a large user base.