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.
"HALARIOUS?" When did Hal post here?
It is correct in that the company has yet to produce anything. I would also say that every start-up company at one time or another was in the same position. Apple, Google, Microsoft and so on were all at one time start-ups and no doubt they had their detractors as well. And then they produced something!
At the present time SMME are a start-up company and have yet to produce product, but that is due to change tomorrow. Medical Keyrings will be on sale and there will be revenue.
In addition to the Medical Keyring SMME are finalising the production of the biometric SmartCard. The card is far ahead of the opposition in levels of security. If I were to steal your keycard today I can use the tap and go facility for up to $100.00 with no signature or PIN required until your card was empty. If you steal an SMME card it won't work without your thumb being on it. As a consumer it means your cash is secure if your card is stolen - for a bank it means a saving of billions per annum in fraudulent transactions. The savings to be made are enormous. At the minute it is being promoted as a keycard only. Think of the other applications - secure access control, the card will only work for me: health insurance funds, it will only grant service to the insured person not someone they loan it to for free medical treatment: official ID's whether they be drivers licences or ID cards. The possibilities are limitless.
At the same time SMME are involved in litigation with Visa/Master and that is proceeding well. If there was no case we would not have had positive rulings from the Markman hearings and we would have been thrown out of court by now. It has been going on for a while but by the end of the year we should have a result. I am not sure if you are aware but SMME have asked for 13.4 Billion for the settlement - if it occurs it will be the largest settlement ever.
Think about how many chipped cards are in your wallet now. Multiply that by how many people are in your country of origin and thats the market for cards, just in your country.
Now before I get jumped on and told 0 products, 10 years etc. Yes, it is true.
But if you look at it logically and with some vision to what is likely, what is better technology, the savings that will be realised by Visa/Master/Medical Insurance funds and so on people will be using the technology and SMME will be supplying it. And the price will go up.
Those are my thoughts anyway.
OBP
Links to the whole article - points to consider.
“From the "Great" article by Daniel Ravicher ( Seeking Alpha) that was posted recently” – It was a good article but January 2013 is hardly recent.
The quote is of one sentence in an informative article. For the complete article go to http://seekingalpha.com/article/1114851-payment-technology-and-a-potentially-lucrative-hedge . If you read the article it will give a more balanced view than the snippet provided in the previous post.
It is an interesting article and raises many interesting points. It covers the release of documents from Mastercard and Visa to the SMME and the Court as well as the way that the 464 patent will affect cards that use both contact and contactless cards.
The main thing that deserves comment is the phrase “to prevent the sale of another company's item that is found in violation of a patent”. Smartmetric is not attempting to stop the sale of product from Mastercard/Visa, but is seeking royalties for the use of the technology covered in the 464 patent. The value of the royalties that we are seeking amount to 25% of the savings that have been made by the two companies in savings from fraud.
“From recent court documents” – Once again, one paragraph from one Court document.
This section cites an argument from Melnik, who is counsel for the Defence. It should not be read in isolation as it is not an accurate reflection of the position of the case. If a person is doing due diligence all of the documents need to be read. The other thing to mention is that on September 25th the Court case will be continuing.
“NO PRODUCT ! NO REVENUE ! NO CASE !!!! NOTHING !!!” – A somewhat misleading comment.
Product is due tomorrow, with addidional variants listed on the MKR website which we can assume will be out soon.
The release of product tomorrow will change us from a R&D company to one which sells product and therefore has revenue.
The Judge will make a decision on the case. It has made it through two Markman hearings, Judge Nguyen decided it was suitable to proceed and it is still ongoing with Judge Fitzgerald. It would appear the case has merit.
Once again, do your own DD.
OBP
Do your own DD - I agree
“Still no revenue still no products” – A statement designed to mislead.
Once again, product is due to be released next week, in four days time. This will generate revenue. You are aware of this yet you continue to ignore it when you make a statement.
“still no court case !!” – Just plain wrong.
You have posted excerpts from the Court case below which indicates it exists and is ongoing. It has been postponed but it is ongoing.
“ANOTHER COURT DELAY ... big Surprise.” – Yes it is another Court delay.
Court delays are to be expected. SMME/Mastercard/Visa are engaged in the largest dollar value patent litigation ever undertaken. I would expect that the Honourable Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald would take the time for the case to be heard properly and if it takes longer it is time well spent.
I would not say that nothing has happened over the course of the trial. We have had the two Markman hearings that have been positive for us. The fact that we have litigated to this point against two of the world’s largest companies speaks volumes about the merits of the case and our claim.
If anyone feels that the case is taking too long perhaps they should email the Judge Fitzgerald and air their opinions to him. I am sure it would be an interesting conversation.
“Next week is supposed to be the release of the radio ads and the overpriced thumb drive....My Prediction ... NOTHING !!!” – Predictions are wonderful things!
I am predicting that the Company will do well. I can base this statement on the level of technology we have developed, the patents we hold, the products about to be released and the process of the Court case to date.
Just for curiosity, could you provide links to anything that support your predictions?
“I still think the Overpriced thumb drive will not sell very well” – What is this comment based on?
I have posted some statistics before about age and demographics and the market for the MKR so I won’t repeat them here. The thought comes to mind from Tom Watson, then IBM chairman, who said in 1958: 'I think there is a world market for about five computers.' Sometimes the market will be even bigger than anyone could predict.
“usually links that lead to nowhere...” – Another falsehood.
All the links I have posted work. The statement that the links do not work is incorrect and supports the fact that statements made on these boards need to be verified, and the intentions and motivations of posters who deceive and mislead should be questioned.
“From court document …” – So you agree there is a Court case and that your previous statement is in fact wrong.
Once again a snippet from one of many Court documents and poorly formatted at that. It has been said many times, if you want the complete picture of what has occurred in Court, read all the Court documents. I could also quote small sections of the document that would give the completely opposite impression to the one just quoted. I am not a pumper however so I will not do that.
“no LEGITIMATE new sources used” – I am sure that the Wall Street Journal and Bloombergs both share your opinion that they are not legitimate news sources.
To recap. Every statement that has been made can be shown to be calculated to deceive or just plain wrong and known to be incorrect.
I would agree, do your own DD. Look at the post and look at the poster.
I am heavily invested in the Company. I take the time to write these replies as I do not believe that anyone should be able to post obvious falsehoods on this or any other board without someone else giving a balance and hopefully some facts too. Where possible I support any statements I make and I believe that any legitimate poster would do the same.
If you see posters who do not or cannot support their statements you should be concerned. If the poster seems to have “issues with factuality” it is a red flag and you should be very concerned.
“DO YOUR OWN DD !!” – For once we agree!
OBP
A couple more websites about SMME's Court case.
Details of Court case mentioned on Bloombergs Mastercard page and also on their Visa page!!!!
http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/snapshot/snapshot.asp?ticker=MA
http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=38043467
The Lion bulletin board mentions SMME frequently over the day
http://www.thelion.com/bin/forum.cgi?tf=pinks_and_bb&t=
And finally on payments source
http://www.paymentssource.com/news/smartmetric-seeks-judgments-on-patent-case-against-visa-mc-3015178-1.html
I am probably most excited about the WSJ that was mentioned earlier as well as the listing on the "oppositions" pages on Bloombergs. Both are reputable high end publications and get the message out to the right people.
OBP
A balanced view is required when trading.
“10 YEARS- ONE GOOD DAY OF VOLUME !! Lol !!” – A statement that is designed to mislead.
For a start-up company I would not say that the volume last night was good, I would say that it was excellent. It’s all in your expectations. There have been quiet days where there have been few trades and there have been a lot of good days with high levels of trade. Days of 100k plus are regular and we have had days of 200k plus as well. Just look at the link below for an accurate representation. http://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=webchart&symbol=USOTC:SMME&period=6&drawmode=0&size=19&volume=1
“PPS down a Nickel from the days high .” – A comment that is true, but only tells a portion of the truth and needs to be addressed.
The price closed at .315 yesterday and opened at .32 today. Today’s range was .32 to .43. So yes, it did close five cents under the highest trade, but it closed six and a half cents or 20% up on yesterday.
“STILL - NO PRODUCT ! NO REVENUE !! NO COURT CASE !!!” – It’s the same as the previous comments in that they are statements that are either designed to mislead or just plain wrong.
Rather than listing down the details again I would suggest that anyone doing research simply look at the past few days posts for details regarding these statements as they have been repeatedly refuted on this board.
I would recommend due diligence. I am a shareholder and I see the positives of the company. There is a benefit to me in posting here to correct misinformation that may negatively affect people’s perceptions of the company. Other people have a negative view and would disagree.
What persons doing DD need to be aware of is that some seek to gain an advantage by spreading misinformation to negatively affect the company. Google the company, google it’s products and competing products, and remember to look at the people who are giving you the information. Often a google of the user name of posters on boards like this will give you indicators as well about the veracity of their information.
OBP
Other major news carriers also picking up on SMME.
The Wall Street Journal had a short piece last night as Leopa said, as well as Business Review USA. Also at least one smaller one in James Timothy White
http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20130819-907068.html
http://www.businessreviewusa.com/press_releases/smartmetric-inc-vs-mastercard-visa-in-134-billion-patent-infringement-case
http://press.jamestimothywhite.com/smartmetric-inc-vs-mastercard-visa-in-13-4-billion-patent-infringement-case/
Just copies of the PR but any publicity is good publicity.
OBP
To address some deliberate misinformation.
“SMME DOESN'T WANT COURT DATE !!!” – This is not true.
SMME has not at any time indicated it does not want a Court date. The statement is a fabrication and is not correct. The Judge sets the Court dates and not SMME. The fact that SMME has pursued the case this long with positive results from Markman hearings indicates the company is positive and wants to proceed with the case.
“What's delayed next ?? Radio Ads ?? …Or ; The thumb drive delayed ??? “ – This is not true.
The release of product is not due until the 26 of August. There has been no mention of cancellation or delay. If you have such information from a relevant source please post it. Otherwise one can only assume that such comments are false.
“Website and phone still on the fritz ?? Lol” – This is not true.
The website is fine, once again another falsehood.
“Just like they don't discuss so called Pre-trials” – This isn’t accurate.
No company discuuses or posts details of the pre trials of their products. They are in confidence for a reason, to stop competitors from gaining an advantage.
“More from court documents !!! “ – This is misinformation.
Once again, a small portion of one document which taken by itself means nothing. If you want more complete information , read all the documents and pay attention to the fact the case is in fact ongoing.
Do your own due diligence. The internet is full of people who make spread misinformation, make false claims and just plain lie. Only by taking the time to research the company, people who post about it and questioning their motives will you be able to decide what is correct or not.
The best advice is google the company, google the names of the people who post about it and form your own opinions about the company and the reliability and independance of the people who are talking about it.
OBP
Comments should be based on facts only.
” SMME- NO PRODUCT,REVENUE” - Product is due out in eight days. This will generate revenue. In addition to the 8Gb MKR it now appears that additional higher capacity units are soon to come on line http://www.medicalkeyring.com/
“SMME- NO ….CASE” - The Court case is ongoing as referenced by the documents released 15 August that state that that the Court will “clarify the hearing on the motions scheduled for 27 Aug: ALL motions for summary judgement will be heard on this date." Just to stress the point, this is in nine days time.
“Appears PPS and volume manipulated” - If this was anything other than a vexatious comment I am certain a complaint would have been already made to the SEC. The fact that there have been no complaints made would seem to indicate that they are in fact without basis. This is further supported by the trading days where a small volume trade at the end of the day has actually lowered the final price as has occurred in the past.
“Memos bought and payed for to be disguised as PRs” – Many companies use marketwire and most PR companies do in fact charge for their releases.
“A 10 dollar encrypted drive will do the job” – No they will not. The MKR is self powered, has a display that is able to alert first responders to medical conditions by pressing a button and has the ability to display the many types of files used in the medical industry using proprietory software that is exclusive to the MKR. No ten dollar encrypted drive comes close to doing anyone of these functions, let alone all of them.
"If for some strange reason you wanted your medical record on a keychain .. " - The market for the MKR exists already. Most people distrust cloud storage. As people become older the trust decreases. The US in the 2010 census had 34,991,753 persons over the age of 65 years. http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-09.pdf If we limit the sales of the MKR to just ten percent of this area it will amount to 3.5 million units. Now that is just a tenth of the over 65’s, and just in the US. I do not believe that Obamas health reform will have a negative impact on sales as it is still only proposed, and a number of people will still prefer to have their files kept personally while in the US, but more importantly when overseas. It should also be noted that even if cloud or electronic storage comes in it will only be in the US. Other Nations don’t have it and wont in the foreseeable future which opens up a worldwide market for the MKR.
"From court document !!" - Yes it is from a Court document. But it is one small part of that document, which is one of many documents. Taken out of context it means nothing.
I have touched on the Court case above and will reiterate that until the case is heard on the 27th of this month, in nine days time, that any arguments about the state of the Court case are pointless.
Finally, I also believe that due diligence is warranted. If someone is looking to invest in the company they should look at all available information, the accuracy and factuality of the information and the source that it comes from.
I would further advise that any sources used be cross referenced as a simple google search of a portion of text or a posters name can often give you a wealth of information that is not readily available on any one bulletin board or site. In this way you can see if the information you are receiving is accurate or skewed.
OBP
Some details need clarifying to ensure factuality.
Yesterday showed 13 trades http://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=trades&symbol=NO^SMME
Could you provide a link so that we can verify the claim of “Days with only 1 or 2 trades ( Hmm). Days with 10 trades or less are Common .” and also provide an average number of trades per day over the last 30 days with a link so that it can be verified as the statement is questionable.
Average trades per day over the past 30 days is 51,697 http://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=squote&symbol=SMME
Could you clarify that when you say "Painted at end of day frequently !!" you mean manipulation has taken place as I can see normal movement but nothing that would indicate manipulation (sometimes the final small trase will actually drop the price which seems to contradict "painting"). If you have evidence otherwise perhaps it could be posted here, being aware that such statements may be libellous if proven to be untrue.
We should possibly look at the rest of the Court document, and better yet the latest one that states that all the issues you are referring to will be decided on the 27th of this month. The paragraphs you refer to are a small section and cover the defence claims. What the Judge says on the 27th are what will matter.
If it is reasonable for SMME to provide all that information regarding radio advertising and if we are to believe it is a standard that all businesses provide, perhaps the statement could be supported by providing links to other businesses that show the slots for their future adverts, detailing channel and times. If such links are not publicly available for other businesses we should assume that it is not a standard disclosure and the company is not unreasonable in not supplying it on their press release.
Either way all will be revealed in nine days when the MKR will be released and the adverting will be heard.
OBP
Great things are around the corner!
I am pleased with the new MKR website and appreciate the additional information that is being supplied to the consumers who will buy it and to possible investors. The fact that it is linked to the main SMME page should also raise some interest in the company as a whole and it's other products as well.
It is good that they have highlighted the multitude of file types that can be stored on the device including aniography, CT scans, cardiograms, ultrasounds and others. Few consumers realise that there are multiple formats in use around the globe it doesn’t hurt to sell “the sizzle” and highlight the features and benefits of the product. It also has the 8/16/64 GB versions listed as well which is a bonus and would indicate that additional variants are just around the corner.
I was talking to a friend yesterday and she did actually comment that it would be a blessing for her when she visits the Doctor. She suffers from a large range of illnesses and commented that having it all on the MKR would alleviate carrying a raft of envelopes with her when she visits the Doc and the risk of leaving one at home that is subsequently needed. For a healthy person the MKR is good insurance, for someone with a medical condition it will pretty much be a necessity and well worth the price for the convenience and peace of mind.
Great news about the Court case too. It is interesting that it is not just 119, 122 and 129 that are being heard but that it will be ALL motions as BillyB advised us today. It raises a possibility that the end of the trial is being expedited by the Judge and we may have a settlement sooner rather than later.
It will make that week huge. With the release of the MKR on the 26th and Court on the 27th who knows what will happen, not just on the dates but in the lead up. The fact that the release date of the MKR has been modified from W/C 26 August to a definite date of the 26th also highlights the companies certainty of release date and should increase confidence overall.
While the volume hasn't been brilliant for the past couple of days the average is still over 51K per day for the past month. The price has been steady and the buy indicator seems to indicate that the buyer is increasing their offer rather than the seller reducing the price to make the sale happen. This would prove that if you have them you arent willing to sell and the buyers are having to "up the ante" if they want to get on board. It indicates a faith in the company from holders as well as people wanting in and bodes well for us all.
Keep smiling folks, I know I am.
OBP
BB. Thanks for the posts about Pacer. I have tried to get an account but they seem to not like my CC for some reason. I think I speak for all when I say it is a blessing to have access to the info.
OBP
The most recent Court document.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Case No. CV-11-7126-MWF (AJWx) Date: June 19, 2013 Title: SmartMetric, Inc. v. Mastercard International, Inc. et al. Present: The Honorable MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD, U.S DISTRICT JUDGE Rita Sanchez Not Reported N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter/Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Not Present Proceedings (In Chambers): MINUTE ORDER CONVERTING JUNE 24, 2013 HEARING TO A STATUS CONFERENCE RE EXPERT REPORTS AND DECLARATIONS.
The Court has reviewed the Motions for Summary Judgment scheduled for oral argument on June 24, 2013. (Docket Nos. 118, 119, 122, 129). In light of Defendants’ significant and valid objections to SmartMetric’s late-filed expert reports and declarations, the Court hereby converts the scheduled oral argument into a status conference. The date and time remain unchanged.
At the heart of the pending Motions for Summary Judgment are the expert reports and declarations submitted by SmartMetric. The reports and declarations pertain to infringement, validity, and damages – the fundamental elements of this patent case.
The scheduling order in this matter, dated October 2, 2012, set clear deadlines for expert disclosures. (Docket No. 64). Initial expert disclosures were required by December 31, 2012 and rebuttal expert disclosures were required by January 28, 2013. (Id.). SmartMetric served no expert disclosures during this time and did not move to further amend the scheduling order before the deadlines passed.
On February 7, 2013, SmartMetric filed an Ex Parte Application to Continue Scheduling Order, seeking a 60 day continuance of all deadlines, purportedly in light of a large document production by Defendants. (Docket No. 84). The Court granted the Application only in part by extending fact discovery to March 29, 2013. (Docket No. 87). All other requests were denied. (Id. (“The Court hereby DENIES all other extensions requested in Plaintiff's Application. All dates except the discovery cut-off date shall remain as set forth in the Court’s Order Modifying Scheduling Order filed October 2, 2012.”)). Motivating the Court’s decision was the fact that precisely ordered expert disclosures are critical to fairly conducted patent litigation.
Over a week after the Court denied SmartMetric’s request to continue expert disclosures, on March 1, 2013, SmartMetric served the “Infringement/Validity Report from Edward L. Gussin on Behalf of Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant SmartMetric Inc” (“Gussin Report”). (See Docket No. 89). SmartMetric then filed a declaration in support of a Motion for Summary Judgment based on the Gussin Report. (Docket No. 101). This Motion was amended and re-filed pursuant to the Court’s order as Docket Number 118. SmartMetric attached a second Declaration of Edward L. Gussin in support of the amended Motion for Summary Judgment. (Docket No. 118-4). While Defendants were able to depose Gussin within the discovery period, their rebuttal experts did not have the benefit of his report when drafting their opinions, leaving Defendants to guess about how SmartMetric would attempt to prove its case.
Similarly, SmartMetric did not disclose a damages expert by the Court’s deadlines. SmartMetric served a document it contends is an expert report on March 24, 2013, just five days before the discovery cut-off date. (See Docket No. 151). The “Damages Report from Chaya Hendrick on Behalf of Plaintiff/ Counter- Defendant SmartMetric Inc.” purports to contain an expert opinion on damages as a function of a reasonable royalty rate. (Id.).
Defendants urge the Court to exclude both reports, preventing SmartMetric from introducing evidence or testimony based on the information they contain. Putting aside the substantive problems with these “reports” and Defendants’ Rule 702 objections, it is undisputed that their service was untimely. The untimely disclosure of expert reports was contrary to the Court’s repeated orders and likely prejudiced Defendants.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1) provides that no party may rely on untimely disclosed witnesses or evidence unless the nondisclosure was substantially justified or harmless. Exclusion of evidence is intended to be the sanction that gives meaning to the Court’s scheduling orders, and the burden is on the party facing sanctions to show that the late disclosure was either substantially justified or harmless. Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1107 (9th Cir. 2001) (affirming exclusion of expert testimony); The Ninth Circuit affords “particularly wide latitude to the district court’s discretion to issue sanctions under Rule 37(c)(1).” Id. at 1106. This remains the case even when exclusion is highly prejudicial to a party’s claim. Jarritos v. Reyes, 345 Fed. Appx. 215, 217 (9th Cir. 2011) (affirming exclusion of evidence that was “central” to a plaintiff’s claim and therefore “highly prejudicial”).
Although certain Ninth Circuit authority indicates that such sanctions are proper where they functionally, albeit not directly, dispose of a claim (see Yeti by Molly, 259 F.3d at 1106 (upholding decision to exclude evidence where it made proof of a claim “much more difficult, perhaps almost impossible”)), one recent decision held that where exclusion is tantamount to dismissal, the district court must “consider whether the claimed noncompliance involved willfulness, fault, or bad faith” and must also consider the availability of lesser sanctions, like a continuance. R & R Sails v. Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania, 673 F.3d 1240, 1247 (9th Cir. 2012) (reversing and remanding because district court did not make such a finding).
SmartMetric has not shown that its failure to disclose either expert report was substantially justified or harmless. The late disclosures were not substantially justified because neither expert report relies exclusively or even primarily on documents that were unavailable to SmartMetric prior to the expert disclosure deadline. Nor do the reports or SmartMetric’s papers attempt to explain why any unavailable document was critical to an opinion offered.
The Court tacitly rejected this argument when it denied SmartMetric’s previous request to continue the expert disclosure dates after they elapsed. (Indeed, it is hard to conceive of substantial justification under these circumstances where SmartMetric did not even attempt to move for amendment of the scheduling order before the deadlines passed.) And as Defendants point out, their expert report on invalidity is premised solely on publically available documents that would have been within SmartMetric’s possession prior to the deadline.
SmartMetric has offered no reason why it could not provide a rebuttal report to Defendants’ timely report on invalidity.
As to the harm caused, Defendants were given no indication of SmartMetric’s theory of damages until it was too late due to the impending discovery cut-off date. Defendants were given only a limited opportunity to assess the opinions underlying SmartMetric’s infringement and validity contentions and could not adequately commission or serve rebuttal reports as a result. (And, although the Court does not address Defendants Rule 702 objections yet, the substantive insufficiencies of the reports are striking. It is also evident that the various Declarations offered by Gussin include opinions outside the purview of the Gussin Report). In sum, Defendants were left guessing about the bases for SmartMetric’s claims, building their defense on conjectures and contingencies instead of the factual and legal notice to which they were entitled. Defendants were also forced to show their hand first on issues for which they do not bear the ultimate burden at trial – a form of prejudice that is supposed to be prevented by ordered and timely expert disclosures.
Harm can also be inferred from the fact that SmartMetric’s intransigence will necessarily result in litigation delays and has already resulted in Defendants’ wasted time and money in addition to diverted judicial resources. Jarritos, 345 Fed. Appx. at 217 (“‘[D]isruption to the schedule of the court and other parties is not harmless,’ even if, as here, ‘the ultimate trial date was still some months away.’”) (quoting Wong v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 410 F.3d 1052, 1062 (9th Cir. 2005).
The Court does not expect Defendants to be bound by the current state of expert discovery. The issues to be discussed at the scheduling conference on June 24, 2013 are as follows:
Would it be an appropriate exercise of the Court’s discretion to strike the Gussin and Hendrick Reports, precluding use of their testimony in support of motions and at trial pursuant to Rule 37(c)(1)?
If it is not an appropriate exercise of the Court’s discretion to strike the reports, what other sanction would be appropriate?
Should the Court decline to exclude the reports, what would be an appropriate schedule to allow Defendants adequately to conduct rebuttal discovery?
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Case 2:11-cv-07126-MWF-AJW Document 162 Filed 06/19/13 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #:4210
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=89272905
I have removed the extra line breaks, I believe it is still paragraphed correctly.
OBP
Regarding the press-release and "other stuff"
The press release was not done to provide sensitive commercial-in-confidence information to the world. It was designed to alert the US market of the upcoming release of the MKR and for the information of investors and future investors in the company.
The level of detail is appropriate in a press release. Details of channels and timeslots are irrelevant to most readers. No company provides details of its advertising or promotional schedule in an open forum as it allows the competition to book concurrent time slots and dilute the message or divert potential customers when it is delivered.
There is little need for the company, or any company for that matter, to provide details of product development, design, testing or anything similar on any forum. As a shareholder I am sure that I don’t want details of a product that I have invested in to be released to the opposition.
The phone number most likely feeds to a central call centre that diverts the number to the required area of the company. It is a common practice. If you are in Oz an example is any 1300, 13 or similar number. The listed contact number for the US Government is 1800-fed-info. I am sure that every-one here has at one time called a major company, gone to the call centre and been transferred.
With regard to the Court case. The documents have been posted here numerous times and one shouldn’t look at just the Defence statements. If time is taken to read to the bottom it is obvious the case is still ongoing. The most important details are not the comment of the Plaintiff or the Defence, it is the Judges comments which are;
Would it be an appropriate exercise of the Court’s discretion to strike the Gussin and Hendrick Reports, precluding use of their testimony in support of motions and at trial pursuant to Rule 37(c)(1)?
If it is not an appropriate exercise of the Court’s discretion to strike the reports, what other sanction would be appropriate?
Should the Court decline to exclude the reports, what would be an appropriate schedule to allow Defendants adequately to conduct rebuttal discovery?
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No. CV-11-7126-MWF (AJWx) Date: June 19, 2013
Title: SmartMetric, Inc. v. Mastercard International, Inc. et al.
This was the final paragraph of the transcript and it is the only one that is relevent as it indicates that the case is ongoing, and shows clearly that the depositions that SMME have made have not been ruled out. At no time has the Judge said that the case is over, or that SMME's reports would not be allowed. Even if they are disallowed the case is still able to continue.
I am sure there is a market for the MKR. The US in the 2010 census had 34,991,753 persons over the age of 65 years. http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-09.pdf If we limit the sales of the MKR to just ten percent of this area it will amount to 3.5 million units. Now that is just a tenth of the over 65’s, and just in the US. It doesn’t allow for Oz, the UK or anywhere else or for any other demographic. I do not believe that Obamas health reform will have a negative impact on sales as it is still only proposed, and a number of people will still prefer to have their files kept personally while in the US, but more importantly when overseas.
I share the other poster's enthusiasm about the increase in trades. The average for the last 30 days (not including yesterday) was just over 50,000 per day. I am excited at the massive increase to 168K+ yesterday. It has lifted the average per day to just over 53,000. It is pleasing to see the increased confidence, possibly on the back of the Court case or possibly the MKR as it release of W/C 26 August is not far off.
OBP
Hello Onetrackmind, and welcome to the forum.
I agree with you fully. I am also excited by the Court case, the MKR and the Smartcard but it’s the huge scope of applications that excites me from both the card and the MKR.
I often look at things and think that the SMME technology could be used to make it more secure.
Proximity cards that at the present time are used to open doors would be a lot more secure if they had a thumb reader built in. Drivers licences, National ID cards, the list is endless.
The Digipass tokens that generate access codes for banking are another example, if combined with a MKR type reader would be a step forward on an already brilliant product. Even a SMME reader on a software dongle would limit the use of proprietary software to one person rather than whoever plugged the dongle into the PC. Access to PCs controlled or passwords no longer required as without your thumbprint activated stick in the PC it just won’t work.
The other thing is other breaches of the patent that have yet to go to Court. Once Visa/Master is done future claims should be easier to prove, and may involve just a settlement. I am sure that there must be numerous places out there that use chipped cards in a contact manner. Off the top of my head I would say that Foxtel boxes use chipped cards to enable their satellite receivers, I have seen numerous public transport systems that use chipped cards both contact and contactless and even Telstra at one stage I believe had chipped cards that you could preload with credit, insert into a public phone and use to make calls. Even some libraries use chipped cards in a contact manner to facilitate borrowing.
I don’t know if the company has started to think about the myriad spin offs yet, they are probably too busy with the Court case, MKR and the card but for me the other possibilities are as good as money in the bank as they will sooner or later be realised by SMME or licenced to someone else.
OBP
Mike,answers to your questions......
The proof that there is an ongoing Court case has already been posted. It takes the form of several documents which are Court transcripts. As it is you who is claiming that it "appears no court case" can you supply the link to the document that supports that statement?
With regard to the trials. I have been personally involved in several trials of new technology ranging from small items such as phones to multi-million dollar systems. If you are involved as a tester you sign up to a commercial in confidence contract and you are not permitted to discuss at that time or any time in the future what you have been testing and the outcome of the tests, but there is normally a clause in there that allows the company involved to use any comments you make as they wish.
Tests such as this are common, and I could not imagine any product anywhere in the world that would not have pre-release testing done on their product for months prior to it being released. As these tests are so common, and to stop competitors attempting to gain access to pre-release product they are generally not publicised. That is probably why it has not been necessary to advise the shareholders of the pre-trials.
I would imagine Samantha L was one of these testers and her comments were lifted from her debrief prior to being put on the website.
With regard to the question of "What if she was unconscious ? A; Her keys would be in the ignition." The keys may be or they may not be. I am assuming that you are not talking about Samantha but any patient.
This technology is not designed to be the only thing that speaks for the patient. Yes the patient can say what issues they have had. But can they give a doctor a complete rundown of their history, would they have copies of MRI's, cat scans and such in their pocket to show the emergency department in an out of town or out of country ER. That is what the Medical KeyRing (MKR) is designed for.
The bracelet you are talking about is called a medicalert bracelet or necklace. It is generally limited to a few words and advises of allergies, diabetes or similar conditions. First responders and medical staff are trained to look for them and if you are receiving treatment then the details that are on them will be noted. Once again your argument of "if they're Conscious Like Samantha L from San Francisco they can just tell them their Special-needs" is relevant.
People have been buying the medicalert bracelets for as long as I can remember. They do not buy them for aesthetic purposes as the bracelets themselves are not that attractive. They buy them as they are aware that they may one day be unconcious and unable to tell medics their condition and it may save their lives. People will buy the MKR for the same reason, but the MKR is infinitely better. While the medicalert bracelt only holds half a dozen words, the MKR can have your whole history on it. It should also be noted that a medicalert braclet (the cheapest one) is AU$55.00 which isnt that much cheaper than the MKR.
I would envisage that once the MKR is released that first responders will start to check for it as well as the medicalert bracelets.
Unfortunately, I cannot comment on the way that the phone was answered. If it occurred I would agree that it was less than professional but I am sure that following your feedback the situation will be improved.
With regard to the phone number, yes it is possible. That phone number may be at one or the other or neither of the listed addresses, it may even send the call to a call centre out of country. Where-ever it is answered the call is then transferred to the appropriate area of the organisation where your query would be handled by the appropriate department. It is more common than you realise and is done to reduce costs and to have a consistent phone number used nationally as it makes advertising and websites easier as well as only needing one number for customers to remember.
And finally with regard to the preorder. I have also requested a call/email back as I wish to order an MKR. I havent receieved a call back yet either. But in all honesty I didnt expect to hit send and then to have the phone ring. As it is a preorder I assume they will call me back, but to expect it to be done immediately is petulant at best or simply unreasonable. Possibly they are not yet ready, personally I like to think they are bogged down with the thousands of phone calls they have to make as it has been that well received!
OBP
Oh, dont forget the documents that say there "now appears no court case", we still want to see them too.
OBP
I hope everyone enjoys the next seven days.............
Shhhhhhh, hear the quiet....
Thankyou Mattski.
Hello Themrs and welcome to the board
While I am not in a position to discuss LNM I am happy to talk about the company and the reasons that I personally am on board.
While I would agree that Mike is correct in that the company has yet to produce anything I would also say that every startup company at one time or another was in the same position. Apple, Google, Microsoft and so on were all at one time start ups and no doubt they had their detractors as well. And then they produced something!
At the present time SMME are a startup company and have yet to produce product, but that is due to change in the next month. Medical Keyrings will be on sale and there will be revenue.
In addition to the Medical Keyring SMME are finalising the production of the biometric SmartCard. The card is far ahead of the opposition in levels of security. If I were to steal your keycard today I can use the tap and go facility for up to $100.00 with no signature or PIN required until your card was empty. If you steal an SMME card it won't work without your thumb being on it. As a consumer it means your cash is secure if your card is stolen - for a bank it means a saving of billions per annum in fraudulent transactions. The savings to be made are enormous. At the minute it is being promoted as a keycard only. Think of the other applications - secure access control, the card will only work for me: health insurance funds, it will only grant service to the insured person not someone they loan it to for free medical treatment: official ID's whether they be drivers licences or ID cards. The possibilities are limitless.
At the same time SMME are involved in litigation with Visa/Master and that is proceeding well. If there was no case we would not have had positive rulings from the Markman hearings and we would have been thrown out of court by now. It has been going on for a while but by the end of the year we should have a result. I am not sure if you are aware but SMME have asked for 13.4 Billion for the settlement - if it occurs it will be the largest settlement ever.
But rather than bandy about that sort of a number, in all honesty it fries my brain, lets talk about more easy to appreciate figures.
What if we assume a payment of 1.0 Billion (Visa/Master are in the process of paying out 7.25 Billion for the antitrust settlement) so the figure seems low end.
Give a third to the lawyers and we have 666 million left.
I assume uncle Sam will want some so we give him a quarter of that, that leaves SMME with 500 million in their piggy bank.
At the present time there are 135.64 million shares outstanding, for the sake of ease and to allow some slack lets say 200 million shares.
That gives each share an intrinsic value of $2.50 each, just based on the nett value of the company from a one billion dollar settlement.
This is worst case scenario with a quarter to tax, and extra fifty percent shares issued. So $2.50 for each billion is worst case.
A two billion dollar settlement puts it at $5.00 a share and so on. Lets let our hair down and crunch the numbers for 13.4 billion and it comes out at $33.50 a share, but like I said that sort of a figure does my head in. In all honesty who knows what it will be, but it is not unreasonable to assume we will win, and after that who knows what the Judge will decide as an appropriate settlement.
Now thats just based on the claim.
If we allow for cards being issued. Think about how many chipped cards are in your wallet now. Multiply that by how many people are in your country of origin and thats the market for cards, just in your country.
Now before I get jumped on and told 0 products, 10 years etc. Yes, it is true.
But if you look at it logically and with some vision to what is likely, what is better technology, the savings thats will be realised by Visa/Master/Medical Insurance funds and so on people will be using the technology and SMME will be supplying it. And the price will go up.
Thats my thoughts anyway
OBP
The world is bigger than America
There are other places where this isnt happening, and even in the US there will be people who dont want their records on a National database or wont trust the accuracy of a National database for critical life saving issues- and then when they go OS for holidays they may want one.
If we overlook the medical on the medical keyring there is a myriad of other uses in fields we cant even imagine.
A fully secure method of storage for anything the user wants. I will buy one just for that reason. When I tell people about the Company they generally say they would buy one, but normally for something completely different to its normal purpose and often something I havent thought of.
Theres an idea for a thread -other uses for the stick.
OBP
Why not read the post before bleating...
It clearly said that on 16/11/2010 it had a high of .88
Re the .77 or the .88. I clearly stated that it was a close of .77 but that it had reached .88 during trading. I even posted the table for your reference.
For your reference here is the link to the webpage as your next comment will be that I have not given a link to the datum and I cant prove it and shouldnt be believed.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=SMME&a=10&b=1&c=2010&d=10&e=30&f=2010&g=d
By the way November 2010 isnt 3, 4, 5 or even 10 years ago, its not even three years yet.
With regard to how long did it stay there for, if you dont know when you bought them, how do you expect anyone else to answer the question?
So in the last few posts we have clarified:
You dont read posts before commenting on them
You dont know when you bought your shares
You dont do research
You have issues calculationg timeframes
You are argumentative
QED
OBP
Thanks Ranger
Mike
I cant be bothered chasing the posts but I thought you said you purchased some years ago at .77 and threw down the gauntlet to prove that you could have sold and made a profit. The wording was, and I quote "Just look at the 5 year chart and show me where
The price has been over 72 cents.. "
It was proven but now your purchase date turns out to be wrong by a year, maybe more, maybe less. We dont know.
You didnt bother to check your own purchase date, and you didnt bother to check the answer that you were likely to receive when you issued the challenge. Both are very basic actions.
The difference between a professional, or at least someone who has "a finger on the pulse" of their investments is the ability to make a correct statement, especially in a forum such as this.
I cannot understand your demands of absolute precision of others in their semantics when you do not even know the dates of your own investments.
As an aside........
I purchased my shares due to a desire to make money. I will call it what it is and that is greed. You did the same as did everyone else on the board.
If I make money I will claim the credit for my good decision in my investment strategy. If I lose, and I dont think I will, I will need to wear the loss and take the blame for a poor investment.
An adult takes responsibility for their actions, people who blame everyone else for their issues need to look at themsemselves rather than others for what went wrong.
Personally, I think you would be mad to sell now, even if you could get .77. You have never been closer to realising a profit and the a date of "August" can be viewed as a definite date. If you hit Sept 1 and they arent out then the date has been missed.
OBP
November 2010 at .77
http://au.finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=SMME#symbol=smme;range=5y;compare=;indicator=volume;charttype=area;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=undefined;
But this only shows the close.
Or for full details we can try the nasdaq historical. This confirms trades as high as .88
Date Open High Low Close/Last Volume
11/29/2010 0.735 0.735 0.61 0.61 169,866
11/26/2010 0.76 0.77 0.7 0.74 234,766
11/24/2010 0.675 0.75 0.65 0.71 46,400
11/23/2010 0.75 0.77 0.7 0.75 81,764
11/22/2010 0.77 0.8 0.7 0.7 122,183
11/19/2010 0.72 0.77 0.65 0.77 130,160
11/18/2010 0.75 0.75 0.55 0.7 106,480
11/17/2010 0.86 0.86 0.76 0.76 70,578
11/16/2010 0.88 0.88 0.73 0.77 160,100
11/15/2010 0.78 0.858 0.75 0.79 231,260
11/12/2010 0.8 0.83 0.67 0.73 214,896
Any one who bought lower than this had a chance to turn a profit and get out. If they held on it was due to greed, poor judgement or good judgement.
Either way they are still in of their own choice.
Have a look at http://ihwiki.advfn.com/index.php?title=Handbook just under halfway down under "deletion of posts"
Basically if its off topic, spam, offensive to a single person or group, or any one of a number of reasons any person can click the report TOS button in the bottom right hand corner and put in a complaint which may have the post deleted.
If you have had one deleted, check your mailbox and look in the deleted posts section. There will be an email their from admin about why it was deleted. There may be an option for appeal, but generally not.
OBP
There was a cheap trade of 25.8 but...
There was a cheap trade of 25.8 but it was only for 1500 shares.
Of the 52,600 shares traded last night the total value was $16,434.17 giving an average share price of 31.245 cents a share.
If we remove the one cheap trade of 1500 shares at 25.8 cents the average comes back up to 31.48 cents for the remaining 51,100 shares.
There always seem to be trades that are both above and below the average, the ones below average are just as irrelevanat as the ones that are well over par. The average value for me is more relevant at this stage, but even that is not all that important as I am here for the long term and dont believe the value is anywhere near where it will be by the end of the year.
But I do agree with previous posters though, we and the market in general need a better conduit for information. At the minute we are in the dark, and so is everyone else who may be interested in getting on board.
OBP
The last twenty lines are what matters most.
The Court does not expect Defendants to be bound by the current state of expert discovery. The issues to be discussed at the scheduling conference on June 24, 2013 are as follows:
? Would it be an appropriate exercise of the Court’s discretion to strike the Gussin and Hendrick Reports, precluding use of their testimony in support of motions and at trial pursuant to Rule 37(c)(1)?
? If it is not an appropriate exercise of the Court’s discretion to strike the reports, what other sanction would be appropriate?
? Should the Court decline to exclude the reports, what would be an appropriate schedule to allow Defendants adequately to conduct rebuttal discovery?
It seems from comments earlier in the document that there are precedents for doing all of the above, but with a preference for "lesser sanctions, like a continuance" in a recent case.
Exclusion of evidence is intended to be the sanction that gives meaning to the Court’s scheduling orders, and the burden is on the party facing sanctions to show that the late disclosure was either substantially justified or harmless. The Ninth Circuit affords “particularly wide latitude to the district court’s discretion to issue sanctions under Rule 37(c)(1).” Id. at 1106. This remains the case even when exclusion is highly prejudicial to a party’s claim. Although certain Ninth Circuit authority indicates that such sanctions are proper where they functionally, albeit not directly, dispose of a claim, one recent decision held that where exclusion is tantamount to dismissal, the district court must “consider whether the claimed noncompliance involved willfulness, fault, or bad faith” and must also consider the availability of lesser sanctions, like a continuance.
So it's not over, just a change of status, "oral argument into a status conference" or possibly to a "scheduling conference" as it was later referred to.
It may still proceed quickly, Visa/MC may be given extra time to work out arguments, we may lose one/both bits of testimony, or carry on with little change of timing.
We will find out later in the week no doubt.
Good night to all.............
OBP
FYI only. Unable to verify veracity of information.
Looking at Yahoo someone has posted "I have been told by Constellation that Monday is now the date that smme and visa et al are supposed to come to some kind of settlement. Hope they are right."
insert-text-here <-- (Click on hyperlink to left, cant get it to display correctly.)
I cannot see anything on SMME or Constellations websites, or anywhere else on the net to support the statement though.
OBP
A quick look only shows OTVI patent being for mobile phone sim cards.
The hardest part will be teaching the septics to talk strine.
Apparently my reply was off topic too. It has since been deleted.
But on the topic, I was pleased to see CCH's post about the origins and the calculations of the $13.4B, as well as comments on the case and the other sides arguments. It's good that she is here to translate it from Legal to English.
Its in the hands of the Judge now.
Good Luck to all
OBP
Personally I think they will attempt to settle.
They dont want the jury seeing how much they make out of the public per card/transaction/sale. If it goes to court and the jury sees it then its out there for the rest of the world to see too.
Honestly, who actually likes the card companies. Its not like we are suing the RSPCA. They arent liked and probably realize any jury wont sympathize with them but would instead take the opportunity to lay the boot in given the chance.
Have a look at http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-13/visa-mastercard-settle-merchants-antitrust-swipe-fee-suit.html where they have recently settled a case started in 2005 for fixing of fees.
Its also worth reading as it mentions Visas portion coming out of a fund that was set up prior to the company being floated, and that one of the reasons for the float was to possibly sidestep antitrust charges.
They do think ahead. They will fight as long and as hard as they can, but rather than be gutted by a jury or have their dirty laundry aired in public they will settle I think. It will be just a matter of is it enough for us. Who knows, they may already be talking and negotiating.
Chaya has done good so far so I will continue to put my faith in her.
Just remember what happened to Paul McCartney and his bride.
Married in 2002 and divorced in 2006 at a cost of $50,000,000. Thats a cost of just over $34,000 a day.
Before you jump into marriage, why not consider leasing a partner. It may well be cheaper in the long run, no risk of getting stuck with one you arent happy with and much easier to change models every couple of years.
Come to think of it, I may even be able to afford models which would be nice.
We are investors in the company, that's all and while it would be nice to know "stuff" in detail it just can't happen.
There are probably legal reasons why the company can't say that something will happen on a set day, or in a certain manner. Additionally an enterprise of this nature has hundreds of interacting areas that can delay the entire venture. Just look at the latest delay to the court case as witnesses aren't available.
Finally, if we are told anything it means that the entire world is told as well. Do you really want Visa/MC/et all told precisely where the company is at and what its strengths and weaknesses are? I would be surprised if Visa and Co don't read everything they can about any potential opposition and would not be surprised if they had people posting on the board to sow seeds of doubt, create dissent and generally reduce SMME's chance of success.
Personally I hate the regualar press releases that say nothing but I do appreciate the time that was taken for the phone conference.
I don't believe I could do a better job of running the company, and if I really could then I would be a lot richer and wouldn't be waiting on Chaya to make me rich.
At the minute we sound like the kids in the back of the car on our way to the beach.
Are we there yet? Are we there yet? When will we be there?
Sit back, enjoy the ride, and work out what you will spend the profits on. Maybe even buy some more shares while they are cheap, rather than complaining about it.
And if you really have no faith then sell up and stop bitching...all it really does is reduce the faith of people who read the board and may eventually be looking at buying the shares you are sitting on.
Share price still low but.........
It will get higher, and we all realise it will be a lot higher.
Rather than complain that the share price is low look at it as a chance to buy up some more while it is this affordable. We will probably never have the chance to get in on the ground floor of an offer like this at any other time in our lives so why not make the most of it!
Yes its taking a while, but in the long run we will make more than enough out of SMME to justify the wait.
OBP
Chaya
Thanks for the info, it is much appreciated.
Keep up the good work, we appreciate it.
OptimisticButPatient