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.
I agree with everything except the last sentence. Let the games end.
I guess we'll have to make sure that question is raised in depositions.
Leane knew exactly who the CEO of UOIP was. She hired Carter before signing the contract with Rob Howe, the CEO of UOIP. She also knows that Carter did not incorporate UOIP in 2014. Her TRO was riddled with errors.
Hey, we're #1 on the Breakout Board!
I agree with Long Term. I don't think the lawyers for the 13 were acting in good faith. I think they put the rumors out that triggered Leane back in August/September, and I think this was just another stall tactic to get the case postponed pending the arbitration hearing. They tried to get it postponed in March for that reason, then asked for a dismissal. They'll drag it out as long as they can. I don't think it's any reflection whatsover on Chanbond's lawyers, really. If the lawyers for the 13 were convincing enough for Andrews, they really wouldn't have had much of a choice.
Do we have a settlement yet?
If people keep stacking the ask 8 million shares here, 11 million shares there, they may be able to fill it.
Sheesh. Lot of ask stacking. People need to break up their sell orders a bit.
Indeed, there were probably thousands of analogies the lawyer for the 13th could have used, or he could have just explained the patents in question. I'm sure the jury understood the problem with the cookie recipe analogy.
Stanford did a study on appeals. I believe Long Uoip posted awhile back. It was a PowerPoint presentation that included statistics.
Yes. It's called "unrealized" gains.
None. How issued over 600 million shares, some of which you and I own, to pay off UOIP debt.
I'm also suspecting the lawyers for the 13 were not acting in good faith when they asked for a stay. Right before trial, they requested the trial date be postponed until July, pending the outcome of the arbitration. I think they just saw this as an opportunity to postpone once again.
They were all over Twitter pumping it up until they went current. Now? Nothing but silence.
Personally, I can't understand why the 13 wouldn't have settled by now if they could get off that cheaply.
At $600 million, that would leave roughly $150 million for UOIP and $150 million for the patent creators.
After attorney fees - 30% and Bentham - up to 25% - you get $200 million net for UOIP?
How did you come up with .10 - .15/share with your estimate of $400 million for a global settlement (which I still disagree with since Cox just got hit with a billion dollar judgment for copyright infringement). That would leave over 1.6 billion UOIP shareholders with under $100 million to divvy up after attorney fees and Bentham alone.
I have to agree with that sentiment. If Leanne, and subsequently Carter, did negotiate loans with Bentham that didn't include a cap on their return, I'm not terribly impressed with their negotiating skills. I'm guessing they thought they would just cut themselves a % and let the rest of us pay.
The appeal for the '822 upheld that portions of the patent were too vague -- the patent creators used "channel bonding" in places of the specs, rather than "RF channel bonding" that was used in other places. Overall, the patent was upheld. I think it was Cisco's intention in filing the appeal to invalidate the patent for Docsis 3.1 since they improved on the "recipe" by increasing the speed, but I believe it still uses the same technology. Adding more chocolate chips to the recipe doesn't change the recipe overall.
I doubt it will settle that low, to be honest. People need to remember, though this has been in litigation a long time, 7 years now, the patent creators have been waiting much longer. They worked with IPNavigation and Comcast for several years prior to filing suit.
Did they determine that Docsis 3.1 does not infringe? The only difference between 3.0 and 3.1 is the speed. I believe it still infringes, thus the reason Chanbond felt the necessity to renew the licenses before they expired.
I'm expecting they will report that they have not reached a settlement July 9 and will ask the judge to put the trial back on the docket.
I think all of this talk of settlement is a bit premature, honestly. You'll recall the 13 asked for this delay pending the arbitration in June just a few weeks ago and Andrews denied their motion. I honestly don't think the 13 are acting in good faith with these settlement talks.
We haven't seen the agreement or agreements Carter and Leanne signed with Bentham, but her request for TRO alleges Bentham's return is not capped. The waterfall, without her 22.5% "consulting fee," and 22.5% to Carter would pay the lawyers 30% first, then "up to" 25% for Bentham, and the remainder would be split 50% to CBV (the patent creators) and 50% to UOIP.
So you're calculating $1 per box for 7 years of infringement? That comes out to .012 per box per month. On technology that provides the ISP's with income anywhere from $70 to $120 per box per month?
Charter has nearly the same number of subs as Comcast -- over 100 million.
I don't think VHC's tech was was quite as widely used as Chanbond's. $400 million would be less than 25% value for past infringement alone, just saying.
That's precisely the intention.
You can just retype it, no? It can't be that long since Carter seems to be a man of few words.
Half of Teece's bottom valuation, around 13 cents per box per month should be over $1.5 billion globally, maybe closer to $2 billion, depending on how quickly they rolled out the tech.
Of course, settlement would be substantially less than that. But we're still talking about a lot of money.
250 million subs with the top five X .28 per box per month, multiplied by 12 months, then multiplied by 7 years? We're talking about a whole lot more than $400 to $500 million, even if you deducted 30% you get somewhere in the neighborhood of $4b.
That number just seems really low to me, given the number of subs the top 7 have alone. Roughly 250 million subs for the top 5. I subtracted 30%, considering it probably took a few years for the boxes to roll out, but acknowledging that many of the ISPs have lost customers over the last few years, so the numbers are actually down.
https://broadbandnow.com/Cable-Providers
I agree. Carter thought once it was delisted, he could restructure the company any way he chose.
This was from an SEC filing. That's the only one I could find for Rob Howe. If his family owns additional shares, they purchased them in the market.
Filing fees are pretty nominal, but they'll need to file more than just the financials. UOIP has loans, investors who own more than 5% of the outstanding shares. And they would need to pay fees to the PCAOB. They would need 8k's. So at your calculations (if they can find an accounting firm to do the work for $200 an hour) it would likely be over $40k, or perhaps closer to the $50k I posted to begin with.
And yet here we are, because the "decent person" at the helm didn't see fit to make sure shareholders were taken care of...
There was nothing to report in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 either. Why not hire a CPA to keep the filings up-to-date?
IDK. I can't help but feel like "a decent guy" would have used some of the millions of dollars he borrowed from Bentham to keep the financials you and AJ seem to think would be so cheap updated so UOIP would not have delisted.