I believe the outcome of the trial was that T-Mobil was not infringing on the Calypso patent based on the terminology as it was defined by the court. Therefore, if the terminology used in the T-Mobil patent for this communication platform is not considered to be encompassed by the Calypso patent terminology, then couldn't another company buy the Calypso patent and deploy the communication platform without infringing on the T-Mobil patent?

I don't want to get anyone's hopes up, but the logic seems reasonable to me. Then again, I'm not a lawyer.

It's amaizing that the T-Mobil router user manuar reads more like our ASNAP patent than anything they argued about in their case development!

They evidently use a predermined range just like our patent. Which is obvious, you have to be in range to have any signal strength!

Just hanging out in the dark.

I'm a long time bag holder on this (starting in 2005). I've become somewhat attentive to looking for alternate plays from initial stakeholders (questionable intentions) as many who follow this stock have. I usually see someone posting what I'm thinking. I have not seen this. I should also caviate that it is provided that there is no imediate movement from the Diac lawyers to contest the situation in federal court.

To maintain continuity, Diac had to recieve one tenth of one percent ownership. Now, if nothing moves to the federal courts, Calypso is "liquidated" by the reciever. With one tenth of one percent can Diac asume ownership of the patent and continue to pursue the case in federal court on his own? In other words, what we where trying to avoid all along - him runing off with the patent.

I know most of us have done the best we can to accept our fate, so I actually feel kind of bad stirring this up.

Charles Schwab still lists it as N/A

I don't believe a settlement after the Markman hearing would be in the shareholder's best interrest. Only winning the case in court will determine the validity of the patent. A settlement will only confirm that T-Mob was tired of talking to CLYW.
I imagine that the sale value of the patent will be considerably less after a settlement than compared to a win in court. If there is a win in court and the validity of the patent is proven,only then will the sale price skyrocket; therefore, if the trial goes all the way to a win for CLYW then the patent may be too expensive for the Diac parties to purchase. Likewise, if there is a settlement, there is some income and the sale price may stay inline with what they can afford.

That would be Quarterly from the date of the court order which was 08 February. So there should be an update this month, correct?

Now I know what most deadheads felt like when Gerry Garcia passed away. Not quite sure what to do with myself after following this board for so long.....

If I didn't check up on this board I wouldn't have known it ever happened. I have automatic alerts with MarketWatch and Yahoo set up for news articles on "CLYW" and "CALYPSO WIRELESS" that have not picked up on anything from Freepress.com. No SEC filings noted since August. My broker (Charles Schwab) provided no information on this vote and I have over 400K shares with purchases begining in 2005.

It doesn't surprise me at all that there were so many votes missing - non of mine were in.

The Calypso management has done a good job of driving down the value of the stock by themselves; however, it has been quite obvious that your intent was to drive down the price by posting. So now that you've "won" by helping to drive the shareprice down to 1 cent, will you let us know what excactly it was that you won?

Thank you SirH for getting this organized and pushed forward for the progress of CLYW.

Thanks SirH, I'm in as of this morning. Funds have been sent.

OK, so Dave broke his own rule of not investing in companies he doesn't like the management of. When he got himself put on the board I was happy because I didn't think the management was were it needed to be either. I didn't realize he was going to ruin my investement two years later!!! Sure the management doesn't have a single professional member, but get over it or walk away.

It was believed that Dave was dwhco and he posted frequently prior to becoming a board member. I for one was glad that one of us shareholders actually took the bull by the horns and got directly involved with the company.

The last post I saw from him was #29978

Motion to Strike PLead delayed one week.

5/27/2011 09:30 AM 333 PJ File Date: 01/01/0001
PJ Status: Law Day Docket STRIKE PLEAD - MTN TO (TRCP 168) MARKLE, SPENCER G.

HDYMANIAC, I had suggested a while back that a simple summary would be good and actually had thought it could be done. Then a moment of sobriety hit me and I realized there is nothing simple about this mess. Anything simplified would exclude too much relevant information. So, I just said the hell with it. If anybody wants to know what's going on they're just going to have to spend a few hours on it.

Here's an interesting connection, not to imply anything -
DD International, Inc. provides offshore inspection services to include underwater inspections. One of their clients is Transocean. Transocean is the owner of the Deepwater Horizon - does the name ring a bell? I'm not insinuating anything, just pointing out the customer-client relationship.
Thanks for the info litton51

Acknowledged, I’ll see what I can pull together this weekend for review. I would also recommend a collaborative effort. What I submit will need all of your edits and revisions for a good, inclusive and nonbiased product. If you would like, give me a PR to keep from cluttering the board. thanks

An open ended inquisitive message was posted and drew a few replies recently. It was so open as to be suspicious by me (and moderators evidently); however, all of the immediate information is available in the Intro Message and in Sticky Posts (and thousands of past posts if real DD wants to be had). I understand that some people may just post because of curiosity. It’s not their fault if their personality leads them to speak before looking. My only concern is that the open ended question of - what’s up here?, was deleted. The sequential “newbies” may see the deletion as a negative influence in the moderation. If the post was deleted because someone knows of malicious intent, then please ignore my post (and delete it as well).
My intent is only to ensure that those doing their DD and encounter this forum decide that this is a significant source of valid information. Obviously, the level of validity depends on how much one really wants to sift through “idealistic” perspectives and decide on where the inputs are grounded.
Back to the Open-ended-question, “what’s going on here?” It would be best to direct them to the Into Message and links to the perspective litigations. None of the replies really invited access to consolidated DD.
Given that the current situation is very intertwined in litigation, opinion runs rampant. The how, why, where we are going in the State case and how it (does or does not) affect the Federal level is only speculation on the part of the Shareholders posting in this forum. The history in how it got to this mess is where a lot of interesting reading is available on this message board.
I would only like to say we’ve seen a lot in the past years, just because we’ve seen it unfold doesn’t mean we can’t show new people the past insanity. Yes, it was a pump and dump stock. It’s not anymore. Let’s structure an educational venue that puts the CLYW timeline into a perspective for potential investors. This should be the Intro Message with an “Executive Summary” or summary in a timeline. The current speculation on tactics in litigation is irrelevant because we are not the lawyers and even if we were we wouldn’t divulge that information.
What I'm really getting at is what's our "elevator speach" to the masses that are going to be looking for information.

It looks like the disqualification has been denyed (posted as Event with no signature yet). With only 4 full working days left before trial, it's anyones guess as to why. Is the judge tying up loose ends before washing his hands of it and sending it to 151st; or has he decided it's too late to change council because it's going to trial in the 333rd. ????? I'm sure we will find out soon.

I should point out though that no signed date has been posted either.

No images posted yet, but this has been posted under Judgements/Events:

11/8/2010 ORDER DENYING DISQUALIFYING OF ATTORNEY 1

The Order Granting Plantifs Motion to Transfer is not signed. It was included in the package Plantifs First Ammended Motion to Transfer.

Hopefully, it's because they can't due to insider trading regulations(just wishfull thinking on my part).

The funny thing is that the web site hosting that article has a CLYW board that's telling them what's going on since the first article was posted.

And back to Opening Price!
We fluctuated by three cents and I can't wait until a day fluctuates by three dollars! That will give me a heart attack!

Looking at Board Central yesterday the number of searches for CLYW message boards was over 400. I think the other week when the run started it was only in the 60ish range. Based on the price movement by 'small' purchases I'd be willing to bet the these are new longs coming in cautiously.

I would bet my money on CLYW! I can't see getting a >1000% gain in Vegas.

I hope some do... I have another $10K waiting to buy at the ask on opening bell! This is still dirt cheap to me, but then again I started buying at $1.07 :)

I took advantage to add some more also. I really didn't think I was going to be able to add more below .15. Thank you day traders!

I think it's become pretty obvious what has tripped someones trigger. He's quite desperate to see the stock build momentum which explains why he's hung up on the other Calypso web sites - obviously new lookers see bad info an move away rather than investing.

This is a valid concern in the sense that it does affect the immediate influx of investment; however, I've been long on Calypso for going on five years now and don't care if it doubles again next week. I hadn't expected this to really take off until December 2011. Some (or one in particular) may have purchased late Thursday expecting a quick flip. All I can say is they should have listened to Ben from the start and they wouldn't be in the bind they're in now.

How does the song go?

"the roof... the roof... the roof is on fire, we don't need no water, let the.....burn!"

Another issue that should be addressed in relation to a timeline of agreements is the time in which Diac's wife Kathy Diac was on the board of directors and to what level of power did she command. Had she been a board member with the ability to vote on the companies agreements with Drago Diac and/or his associates that would be a serious conflict of interest. One would normally assume that such obvious conflict of interest would not be allowed and she would have been prevented from voting on any agreement relating to her husband or any of his known associates; however, after everything I've read from others on this board, I would no longer be surprised.