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.
Yeah, but I'm sure you never forgot either one!
Spelled it wrong, its Cisco, add alcoholic beverage to the name when you google it
You can't overlook Boone's Strawberry Hill or Sysco
Since you seem to have all this insight and direct BOD access, an idea on when us mere mortals can expect an update on material issues?
Do you know if anyone has phoned down to the fed court recently to see if there indeed has been a verbal extension of the stay?
Just bored at work. Its not a refresh button issue. Its the dificulty of waiting when your so close to the end after 6 years of waiting and hoping.
Its amazing how similar those drawings look to the drawings on the patent submission documents.
thanks fr your thoughts
Also, wanted your comments on this old news as it pertains to the current T-Mobile lawsuit. Do you know or have any information as to T-mobiles involvement in this trial?
posted on 03 November 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calypso Wireless has announced (November 3) that the company has successfully completed the live demonstration of its proprietary ASNAP technology, which "seamlessly switches back and forth between the mobile networks and the new Wi-Fi networks" -the demonstration being made with T-Mobile, for CGE Distributors Corp.
The press release says that Calypso's upcoming delivery of its real-time video cellular phone will provide devices which able to seamlessly switch back and forth between GSM/GPRS networks and WiFi wireless local area networks using the 802.11 standard.
The demonstration was performed on T-Mobile's GSM/GPRS network in Miami.
Calypso Wireless "has the proprietary technology to be the only manufacturer of a cellular phone and mobile devices that seamlessly switches voice, video and data back and forth between the cellular networks and the new WiFi networks," says the announcement.
"This demonstration was an important milestone for Calypso Wireless, and for the WiFi industry. Despite the significant progress we have recently made with major telecom carriers, we felt it was imperative for us to actually show the industry that our technology work flawlessly in existing networks," says Mark Sujo, Vice President of Sales of Calypso Wireless, Inc.
According to Victor Ramirez, General Manager of CGE Distributors Corp, "We were extremely impressed by the demonstration and we look forward to deploy Calypso's technology to all our customers."
Calypso is currently working with different cellular operators and is planning to begin field trials in several markets for its real-time video cellular phones and second generation WiFi access points.
I know this is old news and the China thing never came about, but since you seem to be better versed on the technology front than I, I wondered what your thoughts were on the lawsuit and infringment comments.
www.internetnews.com/wireless/article.php/3321401
Patent Tollbooth Before Wi-Fi-to-WAN Roaming
By Susan Kuchinskas
March 4, 2004
UPDATE: Technology that helps cell phone users roam between cellular and local wireless networks is a great idea, according to Robert Leon, CTO and co-founder of Calypso Wireless. It's such a great idea that his company patented it.
Calypso announced Wednesday that it's begun contacting all major wireless OEMs (original equipment manufacturers) to notify them of the patent. The statement names Nokia, Ericsson and Motorola as companies that will find the patent has "major implications on the way OEM's do business."
In an urban setting, there are often overlapping areas of connectivity via different protocols, such as when a T-Mobile customer enters a cafe that has one of the company's wireless hotspots . If a handset could automatically switch to the Wi-Fi network, when you enter the small footprint of the Wi-Fi, you use that and free up the spectrum," Leon told internetnews.com. "The smart handset can make the best use of the airwaves."
Leon said that mobile carriers could save money by minimizing use of wide-area network spectrum, while gaining additional revenue by offering broadband services like videoconferencing within hotspots.
Calypso provides technology to handle such a switch. Its ASNAP (Automatic Switching of Network Access Points) lets a device automatically switch protocols without dropping the connection. Leon, who invented the technology, said he wrote the patent to cover switching between any protocols. When mobile operators began planning their upgrades to faster 3G networks, Leon said, the company realized there would be a spectrum crunch, and that the best way to limit it would be to offload users to short-range connections.
"Now that Wi-Fi has been out there a while, people have thought about it," Leon said. "But at the time we filed the patent, no one had."
Calypso filed the patent in March 2000, and received U.S. Patent No. 6,680,923, "Communication System and Method," on January 20, 2004.
Calypso chairman Carlos Mendoza said the company is in discussion with one of the top five mobile network operators.
"For any mobile device, cellular phone, PDA or laptop that's able to roam between any current or future mobile network and Wi-Fi or Bluetooth or any other wireless LAN network, they will have to pay a licensing fee to us," Mendoza said.
In the short term, the patent might not be good for much, according to Dave Mock, co-author of Tapping into Wireless. Wi-Fi connections drain batteries fast, and, while some manufacturers are putting Wi-Fi into phones, he said, "The market needs some maturity there." Neither has the market for mobile broadband services taken off.
At the same time, Mock said, some manufacturers are testing strategies for protocol roaming. For example, Birdstep Technology claims its Mobile IP Client lets users and applications "seamlessly connect and re-connect across different types of infrastructures without application downtime or user intervention."
Haakon Bryhni, Birdstep CTO, said he's aware of Calypso's patent but the company's attorneys haven't found any infringing or problematic issues.
"Our technology is based on mobile IP, which was defined and standardized by the IETF in 1996 and had been known as a technology for years before that," Bryhni told internetnews.com. "Our technology was developed over the past eight years and is based on standardized and well-known protocols." Birdstep has its own patents relating to roaming in and out of virtual private networks.
Mock said that most companies that are successful at licensing wireless IP offer a lot more than just a patent. Companies such as QUALCOMM, for example, "are licensing know-how and methods, they're a value-add for the customers."
In addition to IP licensing, Calypso makes Wi-Fi access points and is developing a videophone. The company announced its first major contract in February, a $500 million dollar deal with an unnamed Chinese telecommunications company for the videophones.
Mock said that, while he hadn't reviewed the patent, it would feed into what he called "the runaway patent controversy. This company came up with a great method of doing something, but they're actually saying, 'Whatever method you do, it's just the idea that we own.'" When OEMs consider the number of handsets they'll manufacture in the future, Mock said, they might decide it's cheaper to go to court.
I thkn you bring up a very valid point in that a T-Mobile settlement would only be the bginning. As you said, it would serve to set a precedent for other companies. In reality, T-Mobile would be validating the patent to teh industry. This, in my opinion, is worth more than the actual settlement because it now opens the door to all the other carriers and providers. The RIMM settlement was with one specific company with one specific technology that none else uses. Calypso has a patent that the entire industry uses regarless of the carriers technology. I think an T-Mobile settlement is a validation that paves the way to real money in the future. If it gets done, 2011 could be on hell of a ride.
Looking over the PACER documents, I thought Storm still the attorney, on contingency, for the Fed case and Markle only for the state case? please let me know if I am mistaken. Thanks.
I agree with you on the humor part because we could all use a laugh at this point (all the way to the bank). I have been here for over 5 years (I know not as long as many of you) and have watched our hopes dashed over and over with a new player stepping in to fill the role of Lex Luthor to our Superman (I use the Superman anaolgy only because the think the patent is &%#$ing Super!). I dont know if I am tired, overly optimistic or just plain stupid, but it feels different this time. It seems like we might actually have a shot at this. For years I have watched bull#$%@ spew on this board of all these deals that never materialized. The silence is deafening and maddening at the same time. But if you take a step back and look at it, it is the first time (since I have been here at least) that we dont have all kinds of leaks or bull#$%@ about what's going on. We are all just waiting and hoping. I know there are no press releases, but at least there are no bogus press releases either. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to be a fly on the wall and know everything that is going on, but I can live with the silence for now. Maybe, just maybe, the powers that be are trying to do right by this compny and us share holders for the first time. Here's to a Happy Birthday and hopes we will all be celebrating in grand fashion tomorrow.
My understanding is that there is an offer on the table. (I know one was made in an original letter prior to the state case but am not sure how much it has been ammended) At least the original letter would provide a starting point for negotiations but you need two parties to negotiate and you always want to be the one negotiating from strenght to afford yourself the best deal. At this point (and i could be wrong) I have not seen any willingness from the Daic camp to come to the table and negotiate. I would assume that they either feel they will win and dont need to negotiate or that they are waiting and looking for an opportunity to try and negotiate from a position of strength. If it were me, I would keep pushing off the trial and wait for a T-Mobile and try and settle at that point.
Settlement might work under favorable terms. Agreeing to payout the terms of the 2008 agreement when Daic clearly interfered( my opinion based upon what I have read) is not really a settlement. The problem is there doesnt seem to be any terms offered by the Daic parties (if there are I am unaware but would love to see them).
I agree with you that it would take ownership to be resolved for a settlement to occur. The February filing does, however, resolve the ownership for the purposes of the trial. (Not here to argue, blue is really not my color, simply stating the facts) The reason the stay referenced ownership (in my opinion) is because at the time of the filing, the Daic parties had not yet removed the ownership cliams from their suit (which we all know they subsequently have). The state case is now a monetary dispute nothing more or less.
The patent was initially mortgaged because there was no other value in the company to pay a bogus (in my opinion) settlement. The Daic parties have withdrawn their claim to the mortgaging of the patent in the state case and focussed on pursuing the monetary dispute. If there is a settlement with T-Mobile then Calypso would have the money to pay any judgement (it would really only affect the share price). If there is no settlement or other source of income, then Daic could petition the court to auction off the patent to cover the amounts due. In my opinion, if Calypso loses the state case, they will own Daic the amount of the verdict, regarless of the outcome of the federal court case. The outcome merely dicates the methods taken to pay the debt.
My opinions based on what I read, not fact or an arguement. Read the info yourself and make your own conclusions. (its obvious you already have an opinion, I was merely suggesting a deeper reading of the materials available in the courts to see if it would affect your seeming steadfast perspective)
Yeah but I appear to be allergic
I agree with you from the perspective of initial posturing. I was simply stating abelive the February 9, 2010 filing addressed that.
I also believe that we are all frustrated by the waiting. I must admit that I find myself chasing the information looking for answers because we are getting nothing yet. I sometimes feel like a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isnt there.
Please dont misunderstand. I dont think that it removes Daic's involvement from the Federal case. I simply think it turns him into a silent partner. As I read it, and I may be wrong as I am not a lawyer, Calypso, in the federal court case, has the right to settle all litigation with T-Mobile and Daic has to go along with it. Daic, however, is entitled to 25% of that settlement. The state court case is diputing the 25% that Daic is entitled to and will be resolved as a seperate matter.
Simply put, in my opinion, if T-Mobile settles, the Fed cae is over and Daic is entitled to 25% of the settlement. The state court case will determine what Daic actually gets in the end. Now I know there are many things going on in both and it is sometimes hard to keep track, but if you disregard the state case for a minute and look only at the info filed in the fed case, as that is the only thing that should be taken into consideration for this case, (I gotta beleive if there was any other ownership issue the T-Mobile layweres would be all over it filing for a continuance until the issue was resolved, it will provide Calypso an opportunity to settle without Daic approval. This would infuse cash and inital boost to share price but the state court case affects the share price and our ultimate value if Daic wins because (per the filing in the Fed case) he would get 25% of everything going forward as a 25% owner of the patent.
I have been focusing on the Fed case here in the short term and have not had enough time to weed through all the state case filings to try and figure out where we stand there as I know many things have been ammended in the suit.
From the February 9, 2010 8-k filing:
ITEM 8.01 - OTHER ITEMS.
A Joint Stipulation between Calypso Wireless and the Daic Parties was filed yesterday in Federal Court, Eastern District of Texas, Case # 2:2008cv00441 (the T-mobile case). The important issues contained therein are as follows:
1.We agree that the 2009 Agreement is to be treated as an unenforceable contract.
2.We agree that the 2008 Agreement is enforceable as if the 2009 agreement was never signed.
3.We agree that all actions related to the TRO will be dismissed and the $50K cash bond will be returned to Calypso.
4.We agree no admissions of liabilities are to be construed by this stipulation.
5.The Daic Parties agree they will not attempt to sell, transfer, auction or otherwise encumber the IP without State Court permission.
6.The Daic Parties agree that Williamson PC will be voluntarily added as plaintiff to settle all remaining questions of standing. 7.The Daic parties will supply the USPTO with all documents necessary to clarify that, for the terms of the T-Mobile lawsuit, the Calypso/Daic Parties fully own the IP 75/25 and that Mr. Stephens' involvement is ended.
8.The Daic Parties agree Calypso will be the party managing the IP and litigation thereto.
9.Calypso agrees claims against the Daic parties will be dismissed.
10.Calypso agrees that if Calypso's counsel were to withdraw from the suit, the Daic parties may "step-in" and Manage the Suit.
There is no need for the Fed case to wait for the State case as teh motion filed gives Calypso authority to settle. It does, however, allow for the Daic parties to share in 25% as they are assigned 25% ownership in the patent. I believe that 25% ownership, as it was filed with the court, is the ownership dispute that is referenced in the filings regarding the state court trial. Based on what has been filed, I dont see how it would delay the fed case as Calpyso has been given the authority to settle the legal proceedings with T-mobile. Please let me know if I am missing something in my optimism.
Lol...some of us still have a ways to go...looked back at my first purchase of 10,000 shares @ $.80 on 9/21/2005...been averaging down ever since....lets just say I have accumulated a ton of shares on what I am hoping is no longer blind faith.
Okay, the court website reports the hearing was held. I do not know the outcome and, not sure what it means, but in the comments section it says: "PLT ATTY TO MAKE APPEARANCE."
it is my understanding from reading the filings that Storm ws taken off the state case but is still on the federal case as the federal case was done on contingency but the state the state case was appearantly on a for fee basis. I could be wrong, but that is bow I understood it.
if you read the 6/8 filing you will see that Wynne was removed from the state case aong with Storm.
Actually i belive the basis of the infringement was the Hotspot @ Home which they continue. The regular @home is a cheap version of Vonage that they are disconinuing to offer to new customers.
I may not know what I am reading, but what I saw in the 8k said they were pursuing the two for trying to steal the patenet from the company. As a result of the patenet confusion,the T-mobile suit was in limbo. The patent issue needed to be resolved before the lawsuit could continue. Maybe I am missing something, but they seem to be trying to resolve the situation. Maybe I am missing something, but as shareholders, our only chance is to resolve all the patent issues before the "enforcement" stage is implemented. Dont know if a comapny can move to "enforcement" before the resolve the "procurement" Again, JMHO.
I am not sure about the rest of you, but I am actually pleased that we are not getting "news" via the board until it is being filed through an acceptable public venue first. I think this is the first time in the many years I have held this stock that I am (maybe foolishly, but hopefully not) starting to belive the things I am reading. These people on the board are not getting paid, as far as I know, and really only have to gain if the company succeeds as their compensation at this point is tied to the future value in the shares they own and, more recently, continued to accumulate. I agree that we need to give them some slack. in reality, how many investors out there want to be a borad memeber and put forth the effort we have seen to this point with no compensation. I for one would not and am grateful that someone is and I am hopeful that it works out for all of us.
JMHO
Cant disagree with either of you. I am in for a small amount, only 140,000 shares and am down over 90% since I bought back in September of 2005. I bouught because I believed in the patents and technology. I still beleive in the patenets and technology but just cant figure out if thery are worth it any more. No real company or company communication, no plan of generating revenue other than patenet trolling at this point. Way to much going on in regard to the pump and dump schemes on this board to even know what to beleive anymore. Based on the track record of this company is there anything we can believe to this point? Sorry for the whining but I would love some closure one way or another. I think got got more ups and downs over the last four years of watching this than my wife has with her soap operas. Unfortunately it did not cost her tens of thousnads of dollars for that rollercoaster. Tell me the patenet is valid and we are going to be rewarded for our invesetmtne. Tell me the patenet is basisless and that I will be punished for my foolish wishful thinking. Something!Anything!
"I guess we should suspend the lawsuit and have a shareholder's meeting and waste the last of the money and then ask for more money with our limited stock.'
Thought WK only took lawsuits on a contingency basis (from the website):"The lawyers of Williams Kherkher conduct contingency based patent litigation. This ensures that even those that cannot afford the costly experts necessary for investigating a patent infringement case can still be represented and have their day in court."
Why would we have to suspend the lawsuit and waste the last of the money if we are supposedly not spending any on the lawsuit in the first place?