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.
It also looks like they're walking back Goerner's policy of de-emphasizing the MMP Portfolio in favor of all the grand new mergers and acquisitions that were supposed to be the future of PTSC. I hope this signals that they're going to get serious about pursuing royalties. Although, due to whatever mismanagement occurred, they are stuck in this latest re-exam and don't seem to have a near term strategy to address how that mitigates their ability to capitalize on this asset. A lot is riding on their CEO hire. They blew it last time and went all in with the Guy until he suddenly evaporated.
I dropped 40,000 shares in December and still waiting for the wash sale period to pass to get back in. Silly me, I was worried that I'd miss the big bump after the new year. For once, the continued drop in SP isn't bothering me, but it's making me wonder if I'm going to get back in at all. They need to hire a strong CEO and a stronger negotiating team for patent enforcement.
It depends entirely on how well prepared the company was to receive the outcome of the patent dispute. One would hope that a strategy to move forward has been underway while the court considered so that implementation of new licensing agreements could happen right out of the box. The question is whether or not the company has devoted more management resources to M & A activities. Let's hope they had a strong team lining up and negotiating with new licensing targets on an ongoing basis.
Seems to be consolidating nicely here at the end of the week. We should end up even for the day or only slightly down. Impressive given the profit taking opportunity.
Unisys buys a license. That is the biggest player to have put down money in a while. Wonder if that's what has been moving insiders since I would think the bigger players are hanging out until the litigation is settled.
Seems like everytime our ducks get in a row, someone picks 'em off with a shotgun.
Hope this can hold above .30 at the close.
The market likes the buy back, at least for a day or two. But there's no getting around how squirrelly this whole episode has been. Rather than including the buy back news in the original release, IMO they have manipulated the market to send the price down prior to their buy back. They seem willing to sacrifice share price, at least in the short term, but for what tangible long term goal is not clear.
I'm continuing to hold on spec that they have not disclosed the whole story regarding the J3 but they are not inspiring a lot of confidence in their regard for shareholders.
Actually he said income from "transactions" not licensing specifically. It could be that no financial transaction pursuant to the settlement has yet occurred. It's hard to imagine how they could have peeled of plaintiffs for individual settlements, gotten a positive result from the Markman hearing, settled a major piece of litigation, sent out PR that at least implied a good outcome and still have blown it on the revenue side. But dumber things have happened. The letter to shareholders certainly downplayed licensing as a going-forward focus of the business. Given public actions and statements, M&A is all spec at this time. The licensing is the only revenue generator they have.
Too much smoke and mirrors here. I think a talented CEO and PR firm could convey a stronger sense of the positive to shareholders if there was, in fact, reason to do so. They are either incompetent in communications or thay have not performed up to expectations. And there's no way to tell if and when questions will be answered.
If this is the 10Q and the terms of the settlement are confidential, then I cannot imagine what PR would affect this positively.
Perhaps I'm wrong about this, but I think a settlement in place of a verdict was a less desireable outcome for PTSC/TPL's enforcement of the patent. That's not to say that I think it is a weak position. A verdict would have been more compelling and established a precedent. A settlement leaves the door open for other infringers to challenge in court and start the whole mess over if they have deep enough pockets. The more infringers that sign, the greater the weight of evidence against the others and the more secure our settlement victory. I think a verdict would have caused the PPS to rise more quickly. Now we need to wait and see the terms in April and how the strategy for signing other infringers plays out.
What is the basis of these lawsuits? What is the claim?
Here are the Senate Co-sponsors of this bill:
Sen Bennett, Robert F. [UT]
Sen Cornyn, John [TX]
Sen Craig, Larry E. [ID]
Sen Crapo, Mike [ID]
Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT]
Sen Salazar, Ken [CO]
Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY]
Sen Smith, Gordon H. [OR
Sen Whitehouse, Sheldon [RI]
And here is the Congressional Record Summary of the Bill:
SUMMARY AS OF:
4/18/2007--Introduced.
Patent Reform Act of 2007 - Modifies conditions under which a patent may be obtained for an invention or discovery, including by: (1) defining "inventor" to include a joint inventor and coinventor; (2) making the effective filing date of a claimed invention the filing date of the patent or the patent application; and (3) revising procedures for patent interference disputes.
Revises requirements for an inventor's oath or declaration to allow substitute statements in specified circumstances (e.g., death or disability) and supplemental and corrected statements.
Allows a third party assignee (other than the inventor) or a person with a proprietary interest to file a patent application.
Modifies provisions relating to damages for patent infringement to: (1) require a court to conduct an analysis of a patent's specific contribution over prior art; (2) allow increased damages for willfull patent infringement; and (3) expand the prior user defense.
Renames the Board of Patent Appeals as the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Revises provisions relating to the Board's composition, duties, and authorities.
Allows a person who is not the patent owner to file a petition with the Board to cancel a patent as invalid (post-grant review). Sets forth procedures for the consideration of such petitions, including provisions to prevent harassment of patent owners and abuse of process.
Allows third parties to submit documents relevant to the examination of a patent application.
Revises venue requirements for civil patent actions against individuals and corporations to allow actions to be brought in the judicial district where either
Sadly, IMO, the discounts will continue until the court case is settled. What is unknown is whether or not there is any tiering in the level of discount offered. For example, did a licensee from a year ago receive a greater discount than Bull?
Another day of positive news, another day of price drop.
"...the value and competitive edge they can achieve by becoming early purchasers of a Moore Microprocessor Patent". Is there any intelligence on when it is too late to be an "early purchaser"? Does this mean until the court case is settled, everyone gets a big discount? I apologize if this is somehow common knowledge that I have just missed, but any information on this would be appreciated.
I looked up their IRS FOrm 990 for 2005. A 501(c)(3) is required to disclose large donations, but the IRS redacts the names of the donors on the publicly available 990's. Even so, the specific amounts of their gifts are not impressive. Their annual budget is under 200K for everything, including litigation costs. They have no salaried management.
Friends,
The more people that ignore SSC, the fewer people who respond in some way and the less clutter in the discussion. Don't you like less clutter?