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.
Effective Midnight Eastern Time I will be resigning as moderator
I will also at that time delete the ibox so that a new moderator
can take over the responsibilities of the board.
Additionally, I am sending a letter of apology to dhwco as a
and others as shareholders of calypso wireless.
I also have said to an intermediary shareholder that I will be
relinquishing my intellectual property = copyrighted presentation
to a trust if appropriate documents are so provided to me
whereby it states specifically that it is the property of all
shareholders except drago daic and his related parties etc.
such that if the property has value and drago daic has the
patent he may not use it without first licensing from the trust.
Very frankly I am not a lawyer here, no one may care to
bother with the copyrighted material nevertheless the offer
will always be open to the "non daic" shareholders since this
is a gift, its solely under my discretion re: who I give this to
so there is no discrimination here. I consider this offer
binding.
I’ve been happy to serve we, the shareholders, best interests
while moderating the board and now with my resignation I will
hopefully take that a step further for the "little guy" I also
will be retiring my plaintif2000 handle permanently by resetting
my password with a random alphanumeric password too long to
recall
Sincerely,
Me, we, p2k
Im thinking of doing some research to see exactly how harsh ive
been on the company. I have to admit that even though ive
proclaimed to want to be an "ordinary investor" with no special
knowledge then i have to ask myself why i spend so much time on
the net researching the company. Sadly i had a recent talk with
another investor and did a search over my hard drive for some
links to share with them and found that many were dead, so now
its back to the drawing board to come up with something tangible.
I guess in the mean time i better try to find a reason to be
optimistic. I guess after what happened when dewine took over
and how they have screwed things up w/ daic that ive been
conditioned via multiple regiems of bad management to expect
instant results. So therefor I'll have to apologize for being
overly harsh on the filings.
Ive really tried to bring in people to the BOD, but should not
be disraught with the current situation. I figure the worst
thing could be board members not getting mad because they dont
give a crap, clearly management cares enough to get mad. If i
recall correctly the dewine guys got mad only when the were
waiting for carlos's shares after that it seems that they didnt
give a dam.
I guess we all need to be more patient and let the independent
directors gather some momentum, one thing is for sure im very
much releived that changes were made in the board and most
definitely its better to have more mouths to feed if the hands
that come with them do something more than twiddle their thumbs
btw its fixed, also, who filed this 8k anyway,
looks like dave willimas made the mistake in date
shame on me for not catching his error after he released
it in a public filing
http://biz.yahoo.com/e/090612/clyw.pk8-k.html
My understanding of defending one's self in a nucance suit is
as follows,
1.) change of venue due to hardship
2.) motion to dismiss
3.) video taped deposition every question is objected and the
judge will evaluate all objections by the strictest standards
etc.
someone looses
first of all that is untrue, and seceond of all, if it is
they have to prove it, btw, tell all the companies that
offer blurry pictures as previews that they have no copyright
and that a preview invalidates they have no copright etc.
this is laugable, and the hostility demonstrates with out at
doubt that some people can't meet challanges.
and as far as im concerned im watching for a nucence lawsuit
to come my way.
nope, any director that is willing to put their pride above
the best interests the company is unfit to serve as director
copright infringments are serious tort violations of IP.
the solution is not to do it!
i agree
"I had asked Ihub admin to block Plaintif2000 and they apparently felt my request did not have merit."
there you have it, i officially challenge the company not to
use anyone's copywrited material and i official challange
the company to exceede the impact of again any copwrited
materials that they may be privy to without actually violating
any copyrights.
dwhco's post will not be sticky neither will my response
i hope tht i dont have to delete redudant posts.
One last thing to consider, if two apposing parties draw upon
message board information for evidence which is most daming
and to who? the person that originally made a post or
the person that emulates the post? So the formula for the
emulator is to emulate--nothing could be more protective
unless of course there is a copyright forbidding the emulator
then the emulator is forced to stumble on his own.
sorry im starting to sound like charlie
Like wise there are conditions where someone could contact
me and depending on who that was they might need a neutral
3d party but who knows what one needs to communicate with
another human being other than it should be economical and
efficient and truthful
Ive discussed the ip tool with someone that we all know and?
and it was his assertion that the ip's would not be accurate
because of the myrad routing possibilities. we did not
however consider removing it because of that, only to take it
w/ a grain of salt, thank you for your concern
dwhco also hoped for a positive outcome from the past 3
directors, richard cathy and cristian, i will try to limit my
criticism to well established motifs ones that the board is
already familiar with from past management to compare and
contrast how they measure up.
thats what everyone said about dwhco and he was right, more
importantly from my perspective LG was correct about dwhco
the torch keep getting passed. All im hoping the company will
do is do their job, thats it. do it, I see something different
and its not just because ive had a "falling out" with these
people. look at my reply to LG a few months ago i said he was
smart for questioning whether there would be an election.
I have not changed. how would shareholders respond if i do
something analagous to what dwhco has done? The answer is
simple--hate me, just like all of you hated him. Now he's
won a popularity contest and he doesnt want anything to
change that. Droy wants to get votes too. I dont care about
votes, i just want the company to win this tmobile suit asap
and declare a fat dividend so i can forget about this
miserable situation--to do that they must present to the jury
as best as they are able. All shareholders will be greatly
dissapointed if the company uses sharma and he walks in with a box of tinker toys.
what makes me think that will happen? the simple fact that
sharma can only present what the company can give him if the
company can give sharma a bazooka rather than a box of tinker
toys its something that they probably better do or else risk
angry shareholders. Unfortunately some nieve shareholders
might think that the bazooka mfg is uncool on basic principals
all i can say is if thats one's basic principle then why
sue tmobile?
lets see what happens
I wrote a long post and it was lost, let me just say this
successful technology startups are not run but managers they
are run by technologists that are willing to learn whatever
they need to develop the technology, Since the company is
a technology company rule applies even if the company is
just a licensing patent troll. If we could get 5 people
that could total 1.5 sharma equivelents we would have a
a message and a following and an outreach. Our board of
directors, doesn't even sum to a total of 0.1 sharma
equivelents. And im speaking from a technology perspective
imho, lg, you, myself, bazz and michael allard would do
infinitely better than the current board because we could
develop a technological perspective and an outreach. that
would be approximately 1.5 sharma equivalents.
thats the rub, and a bigger red flag than imho the
self dealing that is beginning to ever so slightly surface
based on the information and lack there of in the company
filings
fwiw, if one feels compelled to contact me directly based on
what one might beleive is a sudden change in my attitude please
do not. despite what wrong may have traspired behind the
sceenes there is nothing i can do untill the truth surfaces
my family owns shares in this headache, alot of them, so one
must always take that into consideration if they are speculating
on my intent. On the other hand, if our shares are worthless
there is nothing to take into consideration in any form of
speculation.
consult a math professor he will tell you its a flawless model
of the given situation.
if you remember it all started a year and a half ago when the
company failed to make some filings that was the red flag
that dwhco raised, similarly there are red flags here already
but now its not dwhco that identifying them so even in that
respect the names have changed but the face of opposition
to impropriety remains intact, this time around i think
either there will be some money to be made however but in the
end it will likely come as a shock to all the cheer leaders
what finally goes down. someone needs to be watching for this
crap and w/ dwhco gone its anyone's guess. no doubt however
the general principals put forth by LG hold, that you just
cant trust anyone and if you do you are a fool, so here i am
the fool
:)
Ta = b where both a and b are people characteristics
abstracted from insiders T is a transformation operator that
maps elements of the {insiders space} back to the {insider space}
unless someone operates on T to expand its dimesionality it will
continue to be an isomorphism hence currently is still of the
form T and not RxT = T' such that T'a is not an element of the
"{insiders space}" where Rx is a dimensionality expanding form
therefore as ive said we still effectively live in line land
a multi dimensonal space that is effectively only 1 dimensional
becaused our transformation operator is of the form of T and
not the form of T'. Meaning the names have changed but the
faces are the same, nothing new under the sun!. further without
the Rx operator-and not shpurious one at that-there is no hope
of crossing and moreover interconnecting the devide between
creativity and insider management
Just to make it clear, buddy o'l pal, ive never worked for
anyone relating to calypso, not even tacitly, Ive worked for
change, that is a different entity and imho it did not care
to take from in this company, there is a divide between the
the creative forces that made the company what it is today
and the forces that have destroyed that creativity. I could
compare and contrast sharma with valentti and leon and ozabal
but i will save that for later i suspect and have evidence
that suggests that i am correct that most of the people that
are "insiders" these days have it WRONG. Some know what im
thinking and they dont like that. I'll wait untill the
bogometer starts getting pinned again and then swoop in as
need be.
geting back to your request, get someone that used to work for
calypso at a creative capacity to ask me, there are a handful
otherwise ill get to it when i get to it, thanks you though
its on the list, i hope you wont charge me for the advice you
can feel free to bill ihub and see if they try to pass the
bill along to me
why should anyone know anything that is not public? company
has not changed, nothing new is under the sun as the saying
goes the names change but the faces remain the same.
I am greatly releived to be out of the loop. How i got here
however is very distressing. But im actually happy that im
not sucking up to hippocrits
im being harsh about anyting not public but its in bad taste to
be putting it around thats what ASNAP did and he was working for
carlos and he hurt many investors espically cf99.
Too many good cover storys going around and too many investors
have had to pay for it.
My position here is very simple, this is better than a lottery
ticket, way way better but more expensive from every perspective
lets take a look at whos been buying shares, why not buy
shares form the company directly and receive a patent mortgage
agreement like all the other investors that have helped
the company? what a waste just who sold thoses shares anyway
the little guy that doesnt know what is going on or a big guy
that got shares for free?
its very intersting how errors enter in when it was a cut and
paste, there are other odd things that have happened like
small deletions etc. editors programs etc all do funny things
btw why dont you try to start a board find out how
problematic it is with cutting and pasting formating no spelling
checker online there are many problems with software etc
nothing online is safe from small errors either because its
such a pain to change things or they just creep in because of
bots, i did a check on a web site lookig at a log over a
short period of time it was amazing how many bots etc combed
through the net to find a small insignificant site. thats
why its best to host things your self w/ your own security etc
i have a server where i could actually do that but its in
storrage and now why bother, anyway the disclamer is there
for many reasons lets see if it dissapears again i didnt
delete it before
My Opinion Post:
My Opinions are more questions at this point:
Dr. foo states to Droy (paraphrasing): <"why would anyone give richard pattin a break"> additionally i appreciate his optimism
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=40040646
i say indeed? why? tell us droy? inquiring minds want to know...
secondly from a poster only hated second to me j/k (btw has always been right, even about me ultimately looking like a fool) who wonders when will dave williams be ratified by a shareholder vote?
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=37862907
IMHO, LG is the "smartest guy in the room"
whats the better way?
2nd repley, the company faces challenges on all fronts if
they cannot meet a challange then either they delegate or die
now if the company loses the patent to drago is it better to
have at least one shareholder that has the balls to take a
chunck out of his behand or it is more appropriate that he
gets off without a hitch?
and what if that hitch can wipe out everything drago gets?
i've often said that would be a good thing (but only if
shareholders had no hope of extracting anything from drahgo)
perhaps you have not been in the stock long enough to get it
thats ok, no harm no foul ;), like they say, you had to be
there...
I would like to re-iterate that anyone is free to blame me for
"anything under the sun" ive already been blamed by LG (called
on the fact that Mr. Willaims has yet to ratify himself--go
back and look at his post--and btw i acknowledged that he was
the smartest guy in the room for making such an observation)
remember this saying people are free to blame me is not the same
as volunteering to accept blame
I beleive the company has the duty to shareholders to use the
best material to enforce the patent, and if that material is
copyrighted then they better have a license deal going into
trial else someone may file a complaint against the company and
hence disrupt the tmoble legal proceedings.
imho
valenti
sharma
leon
ozabal
etc al
have been screwed by the company this environment is wrong and
has to change
the blame de jour, that its my fault that there has not yet been
an election of company officers, simply unbeleivable, im sure
some of the cheerleaders are haveing a fit barking "he's out"
like they rule the world...lol
"Each person should have certain things they’re better at than the others, but everyone should be pretty good at anything.”
This is what calypso doesnt have, in the past management did
everything to destroy this possibility as did many others that
sought to take over the company, its not clear to me now where
this company stands in its capacity to innovate, in its ability
to select the best possible means of communicating specific
ideas I have no doubt that when they finally sit down at the
drawing board to perfect critical and essential aspects of
their message that they will at this point be found to be
lacking.
Company officers that intend on licensing the technology need to
adhere to the golden rule and intertwine it with the business
judgement rule so as to optimize both simulatniously. It is
unfortunate that they all to often have alienated and continue
to alienate creative forces--simply getting an "expert" to
comment on the technology will not fly anymore if that expert
is hampered in being able to select the most optimal means of
communicating specific processes. Tools become limited if the
company chooses to shun valuable resources because of jellous
circumvention...in the end its a loosing strategy that seems to
be passed on like a torch in a ancient marithon.
I've said it many times before im here to help sincere investors
know the truth and likewise am here for the idiots so they have
someone to blame for everything under the sun including drago
taking the patent.
Link:
http://tiny.cc/B27ke
Creativity Versus Structure: A Useful Tension
By John Seely Brown and Paul Duguid
October 15, 2001
Great new ideas help only those organizations with the discipline and infrastructure needed to implement them.
PDF Buy article & permissions
Management training rightly stresses the resolution of tensions and conflicts. But there are some organizational tensions and conflicts that managers shouldn’t try to resolve. For example, a necessary tug of war exists between how companies generate knowledge in practice versus how they implement it through process. The tension reflects the countervailing forces that, on the one hand, spark invention, and on the other, introduce the structure that transforms those inventions into marketable products. In isolation, these forces can destroy a company, but conjointly they produce creativity and growth.
New knowledge, vital for growth, frequently emerges from small communities of practice. In other words, research groups often develop a common set of habits, customs, priorities and approaches that both produce new insights and enable them to flow with little attention to how they might be transferred to outsiders.
During the early days of Fairchild Semiconductor (the company that spawned Intel and just about every major Silicon Valley chip developer), the founders worked in overlapping groups on a variety of tasks, all of which came together to produce successful semiconductors. According to Christophe Lecuyer’s history of Fairchild in “The Silicon Valley Edge: A Habitat for Innovation and Entrepreneurship,” Jay Last worked with Gene Kleiner on a step-and-repeat camera and with Robert Noyce on photographic emulsions. Meanwhile, Gordon Moore developed the aluminum process and joined Jean Hoerni and Noyce in their silicon-oxide experimentation, and Hoerni and Noyce teamed up on the integrated circuit. Shared knowledge, inherent coordination and collective understanding were necessary to make that collaborative inventiveness possible. The same chal- lenge, approached by five separate labs within a corporation, would be more difficult (if not impossible), in part because of debilitating discussions over who does what and when.
Creative shared practice also was evident in the group that invented the computers at the heart of the original Internet. In a 1998 interview with PreText Magazine, Frank Heart recalled that “everyone knew everything that was going on, and there was very little structure. … There were people who specifically saw their role as software, and they knew a lot about hardware anyway; and the hardware people all could program.”
Alan Kay, reflecting on the more homogeneous group that developed the graphical user interface (GUI) at Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (PARC), describes the dynamics in similar terms. In Michael Hiltzik’s “Dealers of Lightning: Xerox PARC and the Dawn of the Computer Age,” Kay observes, “Everybody has to be able to play the whole game. Each person should have certain things they’re better at than the others, but everyone should be pretty good at anything.”
Such tightknit, innovative communities can thrive within established companies. For example, Heart’s group formed within Bolt Baranek and Newman (BBN) and Kay’s within Xerox. Alternatively, they canbe the company, as in the case of Fairchild’s early days.
Knowledge creation and wealth creation, however, do not necessarily move hand in hand. Knowledge may emerge in closely knit groups. Wealth comes from growth. And growth will often unravel such groups. Companies develop into distinct communities: design, engineering, software, hardware, marketing, sales and so forth. At this stage, the coordination that had been implicit becomes an explicit headache.
Once separated, groups develop their own vocabularies; organizational discourse sounds like the Tower of Babel. At Xerox, for example, when managers tried to extend the knowledge created at PARC to the rest of the company, what had been intuitive among scientists working on the GUI proved almost unintelligible to the engineers who had to turn the ideas into marketable products. Insurmountable barriers of misunderstanding and then distrust developed between the communities. The scientists dismissed the engineers as copier-obsessed “toner heads,” whereas the engineers found the scientists arrogant and unrealistic. Thus one of the greatest challenges that innovative companies face is the step from initial innovation to sustainable growth.
When an organization reaches a certain stage in its development, instead of developing like a self-organizing string quartet, it becomes more like an orchestra whose disparate sections now need a conductor. At that point, establishing business processes becomes important. Process helps coordinate different communities so that their practices, while allowed to flourish, don’t grow out of touch with one another. Ideally, processes must permit rigor without rigidity.
That balance is not easy to achieve. Process emphasizes the hierarchical, explicit command-and-control side of organization —the structure that gets things done. By contrast, practice emphasizes the implicit coordination and exploration that produces things to do. Practice without process tends to become unmanageable; process without practice results in the loss of creativity needed for sustained innovation.
Timing is equally important. Netscape serves as an example of a company that introduced formal processes too late. The company was by most accounts brimful of bright ideas and creative groups, but it lacked the discipline necessary to take on its top rival, Microsoft. As CEO Jim Barksdale noted in “Competing on Internet Time: Lessons From Netscape and Its Battle With Microsoft,” by Michael Cusumano and David Yoffie, “There’s a stage in a company’s life where it’s fine to be loosely controlled. There’s another stage where you have to get more and more serious. What you don’t want is to get too serious too soon. That stifles things.” But because Netscape assumed for too long that its apparently greater creativity alone would defeat Microsoft, it was slow to develop business strategies to channel that creativity.
The early history of Xerox indicates how, conversely, introducing process too early may restrict inventiveness. Hoping to harness a profusion of ideas and an explosion of growth that accompanied the development of the 914 copier (well before the creation of Xerox PARC), the board of directors brought in new management from Ford Motor Co. But, as later Xerox president David Kearns recalls in Erica Schoenberger’s book, “The Cultural Crisis of the Firm,” the managers screwed down the clamps of process so tight that, for a time, they stifled a highly creative company.
Aware that process can be suffocating — and seeking to foster creativity outside a process-driven structure — corporations often try to loosen the ties that bind them. AT&T’s Bell Labs, Lockheed’s Skunkworks, General Motors’ Saturn plant and Xerox PARC all reflect attempts at such loosening. These experimental “sandboxes” try to provide a safe environment for knowledge creation. But they too easily isolate new practices from essential process. Consequently, reintegrating ideas back into the organization can be remarkably difficult. So, for example, the knowledge that had flowed easily within PARC did not flow across its borders to the rest of the corporation.
Of course, many of the ideas created at PARC ultimately did align themselves with productive processes: the precursors to the PC, the mouse and Windows interface, to name a few. But because profoundly different practices separated the research groups within Xerox, the ideas flowed outside to Apple Computer, Adobe Systems, and Microsoft — companies that had better processes in place for turning such embryonic concepts into products. Similarly, the ideas created at Bell Labs made the trek to Shockley Semiconductor, while the Shockley-developed semiconductor trekked first to Fairchild and then to various “Fairchildren,” such as Intel, Advanced Micro Devices and National Semiconductor. In those examples, existing companies were unable to create the processes needed to take advantage of new ideas, so new companies formed.
Companies that fail to control the conflicting forces of practice and process at best alternate between attempts to foster creativity and attempts to exert control. At worst, they pull apart or atrophy. Practice shuns process, and vice versa. In contrast, productive companies yoke the two forces together, seeking — to borrow a phrase explored by knowledge and innovation specialist Dorothy Leonard — “creative abrasion.” In our examples, however, the abrasion comes not between different cognitive styles, as Leonard suggests, but between practice (which tends to follow the path of least resistance) and process (which tries to map a route). In trying to harness the two forces, managers resemble Plato’s famous charioteer struggling to control an unruly pair of horses while each tries to pull in the direction it favors — one forever soaring up, the other plunging down. We have all seen the wild swings that come as each horse gets its head in turn: from quality to reengineering, from reengineering to knowledge management, and so on. The best-managed companies are those that can maintain forward progress, favoring neither practice nor process, but managing both.
(Reprint #:42410)
John Seely Brown is chief scientist of Xerox and chief innovation officer of 12 Entrepreneuring in San Francisco.Paul Duguid is a research specialist at the University of California, Berkeley. Contact the authors at jsbrown@parc.xerox.com and duguid@socrates.berkeley.edu.
INSIDER TRANSACTIONS REPORTED - LAST TWO YEARS
Date Insider Shares Type Transaction Value*
12-Jun-09 WILLIAMS DAVID HOLMES
Director 100,000 Direct Purchase at $0.02 per share. $2,000
13-May-09 WILLIAMS DAVID HOLMES
Director 100,000 Direct Purchase at $0.02 per share. $2,000
6-May-09 WILLIAMS DAVID HOLMES
Director 2,100,000 Direct Statement of Ownership N/A
12-Jun-08 DAIC KATHY S
Director 22,000,000 Indirect Statement of Ownership N/A
12-May-08 TURRINI CRISTIAN CESAR
Officer 1,350,000 Direct Statement of Ownership N/A
16-Apr-08 DAIC DRAGO
Beneficial Owner (10% or more) 22,000,000 Direct Statement of Ownership N/A
10-Apr-08 PATTIN RICHARD S
Officer 2,250,000 Indirect Statement of Ownership N/A
10-Apr-08 PATTIN RICHARD S
Officer 550,000 Direct Statement of Ownership N/A
30-Nov-07 DOTSON CHERYL
Officer 400,000 Direct Statement of Ownership N/A
lol, its funny i was talking to someone in the know and they
said that the only way i'd get into business school is if they
thought i'd be able to donate tons of money--age is a huge
factor they only want people 30 or younger
for investors sake i really hope that people that have yet to
see a profit realize a sufficent one
im the one that started the board because i had hoped it was
going to be a win for investors.
CLYW Press Release: Aug. 4, 2009 management changes:
http://www.24-7pressrelease.com/press-release/calypso-wireless-inc-announces-management-consolidation-and-two-new-members-of-the-board-111072.php
I think you can see them both (Mt Rainier and Mt. Hood) from
interstate 5. regarding your discussion of apple / att etc
eric schmidt resigned from apples board, likely because of the
dispute you mentioned in your second to last post. Now would
be a good time to see if there is a way clyw can license to
one or the other. we are not suing either apple or att if
this would be a good time to license from us and make a 3 year
exclusive agreement--this could effectively shut down both
tmobie and google from seamless roaming, short term exclusive
close outs are ok as long as they are not indefinite--its
called kicking them when they are down aka adding insult to
injury.
and given the diffaculty and longevity of such litigation
why has it taken WK so long to get a sit down w/ the judge?
richard loved the lime light, I for one am not interested in
giving him any more attention--that being said, please dont
think that im trying to stop anyone from venting their
criticism for the weezle--along these lines i can assure
longs that the clyw ibox will continue to list richard in the hall of shame
New Short Selling Rules (sec link)
http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2009/2009-172.htm