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 just ask to be correct With share holders approval and the date to be July 1 2009 the last SEC fileing
Item 8.01.
Other Events.
On March 24, 2009, the Company held a special meeting of stockholders for the purpose of voting on three proposals. These proposals ,as set forth in a proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and mailed to the Company’s stockholders, were:
(i) To authorize the Board of Directors to effect, in its discretion prior to July 1, 2009, a reverse stock split of the issued and outstanding shares of Common Stock of the Company at a reverse stock split ratio of 1-for-100;
(ii) To authorize the Board of Directors to reduce the number of shares of Common Stock that the Company is authorized to issue to 50,000,000 from 500,000,000 if the proposal for the reverse split of the Common Stock is approved and implemented;
(iii) To authorize the Board of Directors to effect a change in the name of the Company from Solomon Technologies, Inc. to Technipower Systems, Inc., or such other name as the Board of Directors of the Company may elect;
By the affirmative vote of a majority of the issued and outstanding shares of the Company’s common stock, each proposal was approved.
The Board of Directors has not yet implemented any of these proposals. However, with the stockholders’ approval of these three proposals, the Company is now able to continue its plan to restructure its balance sheet and raise new capital which, if successful, would enable the Company to begin executing its business plan. In furtherance of these initiatives, the Company is currently negotiating with its major secured and unsecured creditors to accomplish the restructuring of its balance sheet.
Until such time that such restructuring is completed, the Company does not expect to file reports under the Securities Act of 1934 (the “Act”), including its Annual Report on Form 10-K for its fiscal year ended December 31, 2008. There can be no assurance that the Company will file reports under the Act in the future or that it will be successful in restructuring its balance sheet.
28% of votes insiders and board of directors have. SEC filings 2/9/09 Proxy Statement notice of shareholders meeting
SECURITY OWNERSHIP
Security Ownership of the Board of Directors and Executive Officers
The following table sets forth information concerning the beneficial ownership of Solomon Common Stock as of February 9, 2009, for each current director and officer of the Company and for all current directors and executive officers as a group.
NAME AND ADDRESS OF
NUMBER OF SHARES PERCENTAGE OF
BENEFICIAL OWNER BENEFICIALLY OWNED COMMON STOCK
Gary M. Laskowski
Chairman of the Board and Vice President 24,930,222 (1) 8.4 %
Peter W. DeVecchis
President 1,770,000 (2) * %
Samuel F. Occhipinti
Chief Financial Officer 525,000 (3) * %
Jonathan D. Betts
Director 5,087,665 (4) 1.7 %
Michael A. D’Amelio
Director 38,187,261 (5) 12.8 %
Kenneth M. Przysiecki
Director 3,865,000 (6) 1.3 %
D.
Shannon LeRoy
Director 3,688,730 (7) 1.2 %
Glen Wegner
Director 6,750,000 (8) 2.3 %
All Executive Officers and Directors as a Group (8 persons) 84,803,878 28.4 %
kip-66 The date was last July 1 2009 I have been trying to get fivestar to get the sticky post right and clear or off the sticky post.
kubotapeat Did you happen to see any local Danbury Conn. SOLM stockholders at the stockholders meeting last March and if you were still in touch with them? I was woundering if their was any unusall traffic their? As I have read that Toyota President is in the U.S. and from KnightHawk post he is a hands on man and goes where the problem is even though he should be in Fl.
To get SOLM court documents you can get them at http://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/ click on PACER on left READ INSTRUCTION Note it cost $0.08 a page they bill every 3 mo.
Solomon Technologies Inc.
Plaintiff
Toyota Motor Corporation
UP 5% YESTERDAY with out any help from Ihub board members
ufgtrs1 Are you trading in an IRA like the Roth so you don't have to pay taxes on the 5%?
An important law for SOLM shareholders I found.
SOLM at least should win their case with the "doctrine of equivalents" as Paice vs toyota did.
http://www.paice.net/news/tabid/56/default.aspx
This is my quick version of part 1)
This is my favorite law: The "triple identity" test
1. it performs substantially the same FUNCTION
2. in substantially the same WAY
3. to yield substantially the same RESULT.
Part 2) is to complicated you can read the laws below do your own DD lol.
The doctrine of equivalents is a legal rule in most of the world's patent systems that allows a court to hold a party liable for patent infringement even though the infringing device or process does not fall within the literal scope of a patent claim, but nevertheless is equivalent to the claimed invention. U.S. judge Learned Hand has described its purpose as being "to temper unsparing logic and prevent an infringer from stealing the benefit of the invention". Royal Typewriter Co. v. Remington Rand, Inc., 168 F.2d 691, 692 (2d Cir. 1948).
The goal of the doctrine of equivalents is to provide patent owners with fair protection for their patents. Historically, courts took a literal approach to patent interpretation, based on established principles of legal interpretation. However, by the 18th and 19th centuries, this had come to be seen as unduly limiting on the scope of protection afforded a patent-holder, especially as patent applicants are often required to describe new technology for which an adequate vocabulary has not yet been developed. In response to this, the English courts developed a so-called 'pith and marrow' approach, which tried to distinguish between the essential and non-essential features of a patent claim when deciding infringement cases. At the same time, courts in other countries, notably the United States, developed slightly different approaches to claim interpretation, of which the 'doctrine of equivalents' is perhaps the most famous. The equivalents doctrine takes a more holistic approach when comparing the patented invention with an alleged infringing device than did the 'pith and marrow' approach.
Attempts are ongoing at harmonizing the different approaches internationally (see below); however, progress is slow due to the long history of patent law in developed nations. The doctrine has been criticized as unduly vague, to the extent that it injects uncertainty and unpredictability to a patent system.
In the United States, there are two tests for determining whether an accused device or process is deemed to be equivalent. Under the first test (Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co., (1950)), called the "triple identity" test, something is deemed equivalent if:
It performs substantially the same function
in substantially the same way
to yield substantially the same result.
Under the second test, developed in Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co. (1997), something is deemed equivalent if there is only an "insubstantial change" between each of the elements of the accused device or process and each of the elements of the patent claim. This doctrine is limited primarily by prosecution history estoppel, which prevents a claim from being made for infringement where the difference is something that the patentee abandoned through an amendment to the patent before it issued. [1] Other more arcane limitations such as the ensnarement defense tend to be more difficult to apply. [2]
It is generally considered the case that the second test builds on the first test in a doctrine of equivalents analysis. The doctrine of equivalents analysis is applied to individual claim limitations, not to the invention as a whole. [3]
The United States also has a statutory equivalents doctrine that is codified in 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, which extends to structural equivalents. However, while the doctrine of equivalents for ¶ 6 extends to technological equivalents developed after the issuance of a claim, the structural equivalents of ¶ 6 only extends to equivalents available at issuance and disclosed in the application. [4]
I FOUND THIS ON YAHOO BOARD
It's premature to conclude that Microsoft has "dragged" out anything yet. Microsoft's emergency appeal as to the Word injunction may well fall on deaf ears. Though complying with the Court's Order and halting sales of Word (until it stops infringing on i4i's patents) may be devastatingly disruptive or even cause irreparable harm to Microsoft's business, Microsoft was found by a jury to have infringed. Courts typically are very reluctant to interfere with a jury's decision.
And, Microsoft can't just stomp its feet, hold its breath, and get its way merely because it wants to continue stealing another company's intellectual properties. Courts won't let Microsoft continue to steal and violate the law simply because it might be terribly inconvenient or financially disruptive, especially where in the i4i case, the facts were clear that i4i went to MSFT first and that Microsoft rejected i4i's patents and then promptly stole them. What MSFT did in the i4i case was pretty outrageous, imho.
Microsoft has another very simple remedy that it, itself, controls, and one which it seems unwilling to consider. It can simply license the patents from i4i, on reasonable terms - which is all i4i ever asked Microsoft to do. Instead, MSFT led with its chin, as it always does, and tried to wear out tiny i4i through lengthy litigation. MSFT's strategy blew up in its face this time. Indeed, MSFT's lawyers were reprimanded for their misconduct. Looks like it may be time for MSFT to engage a new strategy or a new team of lawyers.
True, a MSFT appeal may delay the payment of the $290 million judgment, but what is more deadly is the injunction imposed by Judge Davis. If the appeals court does not stay or lift the injunction, pending Microsoft's appeal, then you won't see the i4i case drag on much longer. There will, instead, be a quick settlement, imho.
As to VirnetX's case, one major problem Microsoft faces here is the largest financial exposure ever encountered ($6 to $12+ billion) by MSFT in a patent-infringement case which they will have to place in the hands of a highly unpredictable jury and in a venue known to be plaintiff's oriented. (Obviously, the jury didn't care for MSFT in May of 2009, in when it rendered a $200 million verdict against MSFT.) Another major problem is that VHC's patents are involved in all of MSFT's core products and its Windows operating systems - - not just Word. MSFT risks having Judge Davis also enter an injunction to stop infringing on VHC's patents within 60 days too. Talk about disruptive or irreparable harm! Halting the sales of Word pales in comparison as to the irreparable harm MSFT will experience if an injunction is granted against it by Judge Davis in the VHC case. Nonetheless, a showing of irreparable harm in no way excuses or justifies MSFT's stealing another company's intellectual property/patents and will not save them.
Finally, if the Court of Appeals refuses to stay Judge Davis' injunction as to Word, then that's a pretty good indicator that it won't reverse or stay any injunction Judge Davis might be inclined to enter against MSFT as it relates to VirnetX's patents at issue - - - yet another reason MSFT would be well served to settle with VHC while it can and before some other major technology company decides it must have VHC's patented security technologies and beats MSFT to the punch.
i FOUND THIS ON YAHOO BOARD
It's premature to conclude that Microsoft has "dragged" out anything yet. Microsoft's emergency appeal as to the Word injunction may well fall on deaf ears. Though complying with the Court's Order and halting sales of Word (until it stops infringing on i4i's patents) may be devastatingly disruptive or even cause irreparable harm to Microsoft's business, Microsoft was found by a jury to have infringed. Courts typically are very reluctant to interfere with a jury's decision.
And, Microsoft can't just stomp its feet, hold its breath, and get its way merely because it wants to continue stealing another company's intellectual properties. Courts won't let Microsoft continue to steal and violate the law simply because it might be terribly inconvenient or financially disruptive, especially where in the i4i case, the facts were clear that i4i went to MSFT first and that Microsoft rejected i4i's patents and then promptly stole them. What MSFT did in the i4i case was pretty outrageous, imho.
Microsoft has another very simple remedy that it, itself, controls, and one which it seems unwilling to consider. It can simply license the patents from i4i, on reasonable terms - which is all i4i ever asked Microsoft to do. Instead, MSFT led with its chin, as it always does, and tried to wear out tiny i4i through lengthy litigation. MSFT's strategy blew up in its face this time. Indeed, MSFT's lawyers were reprimanded for their misconduct. Looks like it may be time for MSFT to engage a new strategy or a new team of lawyers.
True, a MSFT appeal may delay the payment of the $290 million judgment, but what is more deadly is the injunction imposed by Judge Davis. If the appeals court does not stay or lift the injunction, pending Microsoft's appeal, then you won't see the i4i case drag on much longer. There will, instead, be a quick settlement, imho.
As to VirnetX's case, one major problem Microsoft faces here is the largest financial exposure ever encountered ($6 to $12+ billion) by MSFT in a patent-infringement case which they will have to place in the hands of a highly unpredictable jury and in a venue known to be plaintiff's oriented. (Obviously, the jury didn't care for MSFT in May of 2009, in when it rendered a $200 million verdict against MSFT.) Another major problem is that VHC's patents are involved in all of MSFT's core products and its Windows operating systems - - not just Word. MSFT risks having Judge Davis also enter an injunction to stop infringing on VHC's patents within 60 days too. Talk about disruptive or irreparable harm! Halting the sales of Word pales in comparison as to the irreparable harm MSFT will experience if an injunction is granted against it by Judge Davis in the VHC case. Nonetheless, a showing of irreparable harm in no way excuses or justifies MSFT's stealing another company's intellectual property/patents and will not save them.
Finally, if the Court of Appeals refuses to stay Judge Davis' injunction as to Word, then that's a pretty good indicator that it won't reverse or stay any injunction Judge Davis might be inclined to enter against MSFT as it relates to VirnetX's patents at issue - - - yet another reason MSFT would be well served to settle with VHC while it can and before some other major technology company decides it must have VHC's patented security technologies and beats MSFT to the punch.
Belltower Entertainment Announces Increased Production Slate
Belltower Entertainment (OTCBB:BTOW) today announced the addition of two new films to its current production slate of six features:
The first is a collaboration with Academy Award-winning writer Barry Morrow (Rain Man) which tells the story of legendary golfer Moe Norman. The film, tentatively titled Dance the Green, will begin filming this summer in Canada.
The second film, titled A Kid for Christmas, is a family comedy being written by Josh Goldstein, whose credits include “The Fresh Prince of Bel Air,” “The Jamie Foxx Show” and HBO’s “Arli$$.” Much of the film will be shot in China.
Belltower is an independent film company based in Los Angeles, with offices in Toronto and Shanghai. Led by founder and CEO Donald Bell, Belltower was formed in 2008 to take advantage of the popularity of independent films and the globalization of the entertainment industry.
“Our intent is not to focus on a specific niche market or film genre, but rather to produce a diverse portfolio of films with entertaining stories and compelling characters, and do so in a manner which is cost-efficient while attracting high profile talent,” noted Bell, a financier who entered the entertainment industry in 2004. “We have a targeted international structure that includes tapping into local production facilities, alliances with strategic partners, along with meaningful talent in countries like China and Canada.”
Belltower now has six projects in its production pipeline, three of which will be at least partly filmed in mainland China. The strategy is to appeal to high profile directors and talent while keeping the films within a modest budget. The key is to identify projects that directors and actors are very passionate about. Take Dance the Green for example, cited in a recent Globe and Mail article screenwriter Barry Morrow, an avid golfer and devotee of all things Moe Norman, was interested in Moe for the same reasons that led to Rain Man, in which Dustin Hoffman played an autistic savant. I want to “pay homage to a character you want to see protected. Moe is a character study of a true underdog” Morrow states. Morrow has wanted to make this film since 1995. A top Hollywood talent agency is actively packaging the film with Belltower for release date in 2010.
Additional information on Belltower Entertainment can be found at www.belltowerfilms.com or at inquiry@belltowerfilms.com.
Ericson Core ("Invincible") is attached to direct a biopic "Dance The Green" on golf legend Moe Norman. Belltower Films' Nina Yang will produce, alongside Claire Kupchak and Academy Award winner Barry Morrow ("Rain Man"), who also penned the script.
Norman's story begins in depression-era Kitchener, Ontario, where a sledding accident turns young Moe from a normal kid into a brain-addled loner prone to repetitive phrases and nervous laughter. In secret, he begins practicing, developing his own unorthodox swing. Tiger Woods once stated, “Only two golfers have ever truly owned their swings,” and one of them was Moe Norman.
Known for garnering over US$100 million in domestic sales for the Mark Wahlberg starrer "Invincible," director Ericson Core sees Moe Norman as the "beautiful loser" and envisions a young but experienced actor who can pull off the complexities of this character set in the 1960s. Morrow spent time with Norman while he was still alive and is able to capture the true essence of an eccentric but lovable man.
Robert Hariri and Belltower's Donald K. Bell will executive produce.
Belltower Films has several other projects in development including "A Kid for Christmas," to be shot in Shanghai, China.
Core is repped by David Gersh at The Gersh Agency.
UP 5% AND NOT ONE IHUB BOARD MEMBER BOUGHT LOL
FUNDS HOLDINGS AS OF
DWS RREEF Real Estate Fund II, Inc.
Shares
Value ($)
Common Stocks 61.3%
Real Estate Investment Trusts (“REITs”) 61.3%
Apartments 7.4%
BRE Properties, Inc.
30,000
588,900
Camden Property Trust
42,697
921,401
1,510,301
Health Care 19.6%
Cogdell Spencer, Inc.
407,632
2,078,923
Medical Properties Trust, Inc.
193,250
705,363
Senior Housing Properties Trust
1,100
15,422
Ventas, Inc.
53,500
1,209,635
4,009,343
Hotels 13.8%
Canyon Ranch Holdings LLC (Units) (a)
864,000
1,814,400
Hospitality Properties Trust
84,200
1,010,400
2,824,800
Industrial 6.6%
DCT Industrial Trust, Inc.
421,350
1,335,680
Office 5.4%
BioMed Realty Trust, Inc.
59,400
402,138
HRPT Properties Trust
219,754
701,015
1,103,153
Shopping Centers 8.5%
Regency Centers Corp.
31,650
840,940
Weingarten Realty Investors
94,200
896,784
1,737,724
Total Common Stocks (Cost $43,058,915)
12,521,001
Preferred Stocks 96.0%
Real Estate Investment Trusts 96.0%
Apartments 18.7%
Associated Estates Realty Corp., 8.7%, Series II
276,250
3,828,825
Diversified 4.8%
NorthStar Realty Finance Corp., 8.25%, Series B
125,100
987,039
Health Care 0.3%
LTC Properties, Inc., 8.0%, Series F
3,000
61,665
Hotels 40.7%
Eagle Hospitality Properties Trust, Inc., 8.25%, Series A
348,200
34,820
FelCor Lodging Trust, Inc., 8.0%, Series C
43,100
172,400
Host Hotels & Resorts, Inc., 8.875%, Series E
150,050
2,888,463
Sunstone Hotel Investors, Inc., 8.0%, Series A
609,450
5,180,325
W2007 Grace Acquisition I, Inc., 9.0%, Series C*
379,800
37,980
8,313,988
Office 6.1%
Digital Realty Trust, Inc., 8.5%, Series A
70,950
1,241,803
Shopping Centers 25.4%
Cedar Shopping Centers, Inc., 8.875%, Series A
236,550
2,057,985
Saul Centers, Inc., 9.0%, Series B
154,750
3,125,949
5,183,934
Total Preferred Stocks (Cost $56,133,888)
19,617,254
Principal
Amount ($)
Value ($)
Time Deposit 10.0%
State Street Euro Dollar, 0.01%, 4/1/2009 (Cost $2,052,376)
2,052,376
2,052,376
Shares
Value ($)
Cash Equivalents 17.1%
Cash Management QP Trust, 0.53% (b)
(Cost $3,500,000)
3,500,000
3,500,000
% of
Net Assets
Value ($)
Total Investment Portfolio (Cost $104,745,179) †
184.4
37,690,631
Other Assets and Liabilities, Net
(15.9)
(3,252,132)
Preferred Stock, at Redemption Value
(68.5)
(14,000,000)
Net Assets Applicable to Common Shareholders
100.0
20,438,499
For information on the Fund's policies regarding the valuation of investments and other significant accounting policies, please refer to the Fund's most recent semi-annual or annual financial statements.
COULD LIQUIDATE
DWS RREEF Real Estate Fund, Inc. (AMEX:SRQ) (“DWS RREEF I”) and DWS RREEF Real Estate Fund II, Inc. (AMEX:SRO) (“DWS RREEF II”) (each, a “Fund,” and together, the “Funds”) announced today that the Board of Directors of each Fund has approved a series of measures designed to protect and enhance stockholder value:
1. In an effort to reduce operating costs, the Board has negotiated a new management fee for each Fund at a fixed rate of 0.55% of average daily managed assets. The new fee, which reflects a significant reduction, will take effect September 1, 2009.
2. In light of substantial stockholder support for the recent liquidation proposals, the Board has indicated its intention to give stockholders another opportunity to vote on the liquidation of the Funds at their annual meetings expected to be held later this year.
TRADES AT 17% DISCOUNT
NEWS ON SRO
Description of Registrant’s Securities to be Registered
On August 14, 2009, the Board of Directors of DWS RREEF Real Estate Fund II, Inc. (the “Fund”) adopted a resolution declaring a dividend of one right (a “Right”) for each outstanding share of the Fund’s common stock, par value $.01 per share (the “Common Shares”). The dividend is payable on August 28, 2009 (the “Record Date”) to stockholders of record on that date. Each Right entitles the registered holder to purchase from the Fund four (4) Common Shares at a price equal to the aggregate par value of such Common Shares (the “Purchase Price”), subject to adjustment. The description and terms of the Rights are set forth in a Rights Agreement dated as of August 18, 2009 (the “Rights Agreement”) between the Fund and The Bank of New York Mellon, as Rights Agent (the “Rights Agent”).
Until the Distribution Date, as defined below, the Rights will be evidenced, with respect to any of the Common Shares outstanding as of the Record Date, by such Common Share with a copy of the Summary of Rights in the form of Exhibit B to the Rights Agreement deemed attached thereto. The “Distribution Date” is the date ten days (or such earlier or later date as the Board of Directors may from time to time fix by resolution adopted prior to the time that the Distribution Date would have otherwise occurred) following the earlier of (i) a public announcement (including by the Acquiring Person's filing of a Schedule 13D or 13G or an amendment thereto) that a person or group of affiliated or associated persons have acquired beneficial ownership of the Triggering Percentage, as defined below, or more of the outstanding Common Shares (an “Acquiring Person”) and (ii) the date on which any person commences a tender or exchange offer which, if consummated, would result in such person becoming an Acquiring Person, provided, however, that if any such tender or exchange offer is cancelled, terminated or withdrawn prior to the Distribution Date without the purchase of any Common Shares pursuant thereto, such offer shall be deemed never to have been made.
The “Triggering Percentage” of the Common Shares means 6% or, if greater, that percentage that is equal to 0.01% more than the highest percentage of the outstanding Common Shares beneficially owned by any person as of the close of business on August 14, 2009.
The Rights Agreement provides that, until the Distribution Date (or earlier redemption or expiration of the Rights), the Rights will be transferred with and only with the Common Shares. Until the Distribution Date (or earlier redemption or expiration of the Rights), new Common Shares issued after the Record Date upon transfer or new issuance of Common Shares will contain a notation incorporating the Rights Agreement by reference. Until the Distribution Date (or earlier redemption or expiration of the Rights), the transfer of any Common Shares outstanding as of the Record Date, even without such notation or a copy of the Summary of Rights substantially in the form of Exhibit B to the Rights Agreement, will also constitute the transfer of the Rights associated with such Common Shares.
As soon as practicable following the Distribution Date, separate certificates evidencing the Rights (“Right Certificates”) substantially in the form of Exhibit A to the Rights Agreement will be mailed to holders of record of the Common Shares as of the close of business on the Distribution Date and such separate Right Certificates alone will evidence the Rights.
The Rights are not exercisable until the Distribution Date. The Rights will expire on December 26, 2009, unless the Rights are earlier redeemed or exchanged by the Fund, in each case, as described below.
The number of outstanding Rights, the exercise price and the number of Common Shares issuable upon exercise of each Right are also subject to adjustment in the event of a split of the Common Shares or a share dividend on the Common Shares payable in Common Shares or subdivisions, consolidations or similar transactions involving the Common Shares. Common Shares purchasable upon exercise of the Rights will not be redeemable.
fivestar I will put in my 2 cents worth for SOLM. I feel that the date of the reverse split has gone by. What I believe SOLM is looking for now is a favorable ruling on a markman ruling by the judge (claim constrction ruling) they are likely to be able to borrow money. I belive your reverse sticky post is out dated and not accurate SOLM has gone past that stage.
Why is Akio Toyoda offering prius version to GM
http://www.boston.com/cars/news/articles/2009/06/30/toyota_may_offer_gm_a_prius_version/
Short sell list for vhc
Virnetx Holding Corp. $ 3.01
VHC -0.04
Short Interest (Shares Short) 63,400
Days To Cover (Short Interest Ratio) 0.2
Short Percent of Float 0.31 %
Short Interest - Prior 43,000
Short % Increase / Decrease 47.44 %
Short Squeeze Ranking™ 0
% From 52-Wk High ($ 5.00 ) -66.11 %
% From 52-Wk Low ($ 0.89 ) 70.43 %
% From 200-Day MA ($ 1.52 ) 49.50 %
% From 50-Day MA ($ 2.03 ) 32.56 %
Price % Change (52-Week) 44.50 %
Shares Float 20,150,000
Total Shares Outstanding 37,369,985
% Owned by Insiders 41.27 %
% Owned by Institutions 0.50 %
Market Cap. $ 112,483,655
Trading Volume - Today 52,021
Trading Volume - Average 335,700
Trading Volume - Today vs. Average 15.50 %
Earnings Per Share -0.37
PE Ratio
Record Date 2009-AugA
Sector Technology
Industry Internet Software & Services
Exchange AMX
INFO on pre assembled solar pv systems
http://www.technipowersystems.com/instant-solar
fivestar if you want your post in the sticky post as a stockholder I would like it to be change to with a caution with affirmative vote the stockholders approved a 100:1 reverse split to go into effect PRIOR to July 1 2009
Item 8.01. Other Events.
On March 24, 2009, the Company held a special meeting of stockholders for the purpose of voting on three proposals. These proposals ,as set forth in a proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and mailed to the Company’s stockholders, were:
(i) To authorize the Board of Directors to effect, in its discretion prior to July 1, 2009, a reverse stock split of the issued and outstanding shares of Common Stock of the Company at a reverse stock split ratio of 1-for-100;
(ii) To authorize the Board of Directors to reduce the number of shares of Common Stock that the Company is authorized to issue to 50,000,000 from 500,000,000 if the proposal for the reverse split of the Common Stock is approved and implemented;
(iii) To authorize the Board of Directors to effect a change in the name of the Company from Solomon Technologies, Inc. to Technipower Systems, Inc., or such other name as the Board of Directors of the Company may elect;
By the affirmative vote of a majority of the issued and outstanding shares of the Company’s common stock, each proposal was approved.
The Board of Directors has not yet implemented any of these proposals. However, with the stockholders’ approval of these three proposals, the Company is now able to continue its plan to restructure its balance sheet and raise new capital which, if successful, would enable the Company to begin executing its business plan. In furtherance of these initiatives, the Company is currently negotiating with its major secured and unsecured creditors to accomplish the restructuring of its balance sheet.
Until such time that such restructuring is completed, the Company does not expect to file reports under the Securities Act of 1934 (the “Act”), including its Annual Report on Form 10-K for its fiscal year ended December 31, 2008. There can be no assurance that the Company will file reports under the Act in the future or that it will be successful in restructuring its balance sheet.
fivestar Your CAUTION should read SOLM STOCKHOLDERS approved a 100:1 reverse split
jjr19 Reply to Does anyone info. on third phase miltary contract? Give David Long a call at 203 226 5527 he use to be their pr man. Let us know any info you get.
fivestar Thanks for the info.
ufgtrs1 As a Physician what do you think of CTGI they have a live tissue connecting with now burning scaring can do end to end intistine conecting, said then can do lung sealing under 1 min after they get their. also imgg with instant 3D portable CT scan. At this time you might want to get some permaent intrest. If you do check out closedend fund that are unleverage like HIO and CIK leverage fund like AINV not in the last. sears debt SSRAP .
garza This is not a preferred stock but I think it is a preferred buy. I am not a computer guy. Just had to learn how to cut and paste last week and I am only 68. You might want to check out VHC they have a patent software ONE OF THE PATENTS IN THE PORTFOLIO COVERS THE COMPANY ABILITY TO BUILD A VIRTUAL PRIVATE NETWORK (VPN) across the internet in real time that automatically and completely secures a
communication, ensuring its privacy, and allowing access to that communication only to specifically designated outsiders.
VirnetX intends to establish the exclusive secure domain name registry in the United States and other key markets around the world. The
Company intends to license their patents and their GABRIEL Connection Technology to original equipment manufacturers, or OEMs, within
the IP-telephony, mobility, fixed-mobile convergence and unified communications markets. They also intend to license their patent portfolio,
technology, and software, including their secure domain name registry service, to communication service providers as well as to system
integrators.
SCOTTS VALLEY, Calif., Aug. 10 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- VirnetX Holding Corporation (NYSE Amex: VHC) announced today that its president and CEO, Kendall Larsen, will be conducting a conference call on Thursday, August 13, 2009 at 1:00PM EDT, to discuss its current Markman Order in its litigation with Microsoft and the Order's impact on VirnetX's business strategy.
To listen to the call live on your computer, click on the webcast link: http://www.b2i.us/external.asp?b=1944&id=777&from=wc&L=e
detearing You might want to back up your investment with some VHC just in case they win their patent infringement case against microsoft.
The best play that I know of today is VHC with microsoft infringeing on their patents.
v
SCOTTS VALLEY, Calif., Aug. 10 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- VirnetX Holding Corporation (NYSE Amex: VHC) announced today that its president and CEO, Kendall Larsen, will be conducting a conference call on Thursday, August 13, 2009 at 1:00PM EDT, to discuss its current Markman Order in its litigation with Microsoft and the Order's impact on VirnetX's business strategy.
To listen to the call live on your computer, click on the webcast link: http://www.b2i.us/external.asp?b=1944&id=777&from=wc&L=e
The Company currently has 20 U.S. and International (Europe, Japan and Australia) patents
(with 27 more pending) in their portfolio and each patent has a range of 40-60 claims tied to it. ONE OF THE PATENTS IN THE PORTFOLIO COVERS THE COMPANY ABILITY TO BUILD A VIRTUAL PRIVATE NETWORK (VPN) across the internet in real time that automatically and completely secures a
communication, ensuring its privacy, and allowing access to that communication only to specifically designated outsiders.
VirnetX intends to establish the exclusive secure domain name registry in the United States and other key markets around the world. The
Company intends to license their patents and their GABRIEL Connection Technology to original equipment manufacturers, or OEMs, within
the IP-telephony, mobility, fixed-mobile convergence and unified communications markets. They also intend to license their patent portfolio,
technology, and software, including their secure domain name registry service, to communication service providers as well as to system
integrators
UP 5.21% NOT 1 IHUB member bought.
I got this on yahoo board If you want beef let me offer a couple of suggestions: McDonald’s, Burger King, Wendy’s or Jack in the Box.
If you are looking for a company with a very promising future then stick with VirnetX. VHC will not be serving your average value meal.
What we have here is referred to in technical parlance as a paradigm shift. The entire foundation from which real time communications security has been modeled will be permanently altered once VHC’s patents have been declared the real deal. We wait for Judge Davis to certify the legitimacy of the patents in his forthcoming Markman decision.
I don’t believe that anyone other than the management, engineers and scientists at VirnetX truly understand how ground shaking this technology will be. We are all used to doing things the “old fashioned” way. VirnetX’s Gabriel technology will be redefining security for the entire communications spectrum: internet, VOIP, IM, cellular, remote desktop, video conferencing, etc. The patents and technology will soon represent the gold standard in the world of secure communications.
The call for licensing deals is understandable. But what if there are companies that have or are in the process of negotiating licenses predicated on the Markman decision? The potential reach for the company’s technology is profound, but at the same time so revolutionary that most corporations have probably adopted a “wait and see” attitude. Most potential licensees do not sign before a Markman finding. Once Judge Davis renders a decision, this environment will change.
It is extremely difficult for the average consumer, or for that matter the average investor, to understand the potential impact that VirnetX’s new technology will have. What I do understand, however, is this:
1) Microsoft lost its court challenge to dismiss VirnetX’s lawsuit (06/03/08).
2) If the Markman hearing (02/17/09) arguments presented by VirnetX were without merit, Judge Davis probably would not be taking five months to render a decision.
3) McKool Smith would not be accepting the assignment to litigate the Microsoft action (03/08/10) if they did not believe a victory was achievable. The law firm has won too many large IP infringement lawsuits to take on mediocre or losing cases. They did their due diligence regarding the patents and VHC’s potential before signing on.
4) CEO Kendall Larsen has piloted the company’s finances with great finesse. The normal Silicon Valley strategy of sucking up VC money and diluting company value has not been followed. To the contrary, he has excelled at preserving stockholder value.
5) The market potential for Gabriel technology (and ancillary applications) is tremendous. When you look at the array of potential applications (cloud computing; universal internet health records; mandated government internet security with DNS; and, our country’s growing need to guarantee cyber security for military, commercial and personal use) the value of the company’s core patents becomes even more significant.
As with any investment, the market decides its outcome. All we can do is look to what events have transpired to date and what the future might hold. So far I am NOT looking for the beef; I’ve got my eyes on the gold.
I got this on yahoo board
VHC might not move tomorrow or next week but to me it is a zip code changer try to take the about 15 min and listen to the conference call about the trial comming up with microsoft and the orders that are in the pipe line shares about $3.00 37 mil o/s shares
SCOTTS VALLEY, Calif., Aug. 10 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- VirnetX Holding Corporation (NYSE Amex: VHC) announced today that its president and CEO, Kendall Larsen, will be conducting a conference call on Thursday, August 13, 2009 at 1:00PM EDT, to discuss its current Markman Order in its litigation with Microsoft and the Order's impact on VirnetX's business strategy.
To listen to the call live on your computer, click on the webcast link: http://www.b2i.us/external.asp?b=1944&id=777&from=wc&L=e
SCOTTS VALLEY, Calif., Aug. 10 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- VirnetX Holding Corporation (NYSE Amex: VHC) announced today that its president and CEO, Kendall Larsen, will be conducting a conference call on Thursday, August 13, 2009 at 1:00PM EDT, to discuss its current Markman Order in its litigation with Microsoft and the Order's impact on VirnetX's business strategy.
To listen to the call live on your computer, click on the webcast link: http://www.b2i.us/external.asp?b=1944&id=777&from=wc&L=e
ndforlife Sorry folks I can't PM But I need ndfolife experience as a computer engineer even though it is a MSCE YOU hve to get what you can get.LOL Please check out VHC on IHUB They say they can One of the patents in the portfolio covers the
Company’s ability to build a virtual private network (VPN) across the internet in real time that automatically and completely secures a
communication, ensuring its privacy, and allowing access to that communication only to specifically designated outsiders.
VirnetX intends to establish the exclusive secure domain name registry in the United States Letting me know woul help me know when to sell another stock.Please let me know on the VHC board
Royalflush1 down the drain this stock went since
I bought it. Now on my Scottrade mo. statement it says no buys only sells. What is going on hear?
I have been in this it seams like a million years and gave up on it does anybody know if they made any money on the wind deal?
cabelaman any chanch helping me with your pacer expertise with VHC they are in court with a paten infringement got the same lawer that just won 200 mill from same company (microsoft) they (VHC) has some good software for security I am the only one on the ihub board so if you come over I can make you an assistant LOL PS going to trial 3/8/2010 looks like everything is in VHC favor because of the judge markmans ruleing.
More news on the i4i case
View my
My PostsFacebookTwitterLinkedInJudge: Microsoft Banned from Selling Word in the USAugust 12th, 2009 | by Pete Cashmore143 Comments
Welcome to the world of surprising patent lawsuits. A Texas judge ruled Tuesday that Microsoft cannot sell Word – yes, Microsoft Word, the cornerstone of Microsoft Office – in the United States.
Toronto-based i4i Inc won an injunction against Microsoft regarding the company’s XML patents. In the words of i4i, the injunction “prohibits Microsoft from selling or importing to the United States any Microsoft Word products that have the capability of opening .XML, .DOCX or DOCM files (XML files) containing custom XML”. Microsoft has been given 60 days to comply, reports Seattle PI.
The injunction reads:
Microsoft Corporation is hereby permanently enjoined from performing the following actions with Microsoft Word 2003, Microsoft Word 2007, and Microsoft Word products not more than colorably different from Microsoft Word 2003 or Microsoft Word 2007 (collectively “Infringing and Future Word Products”) during the term of U.S. Patent No. 5,787,449:
1. selling, offering to sell, and/or importing in or into the United States any
Infringing and Future Word Products that have the capability of opening a .XML,
.DOCX, or .DOCM file (“an XML file”) containing custom XML;
2. using any Infringing and Future Word Products to open an XML file
containing custom XML;
3. instructing or encouraging anyone to use any Infringing and Future Word
Products to open an XML file containing custom XML;
4. providing support or assistance to anyone that describes how to use any infringing and Future Word Products to open an XML file containing custom XML;
and
5. testing, demonstrating, or marketing the ability of the Infringing and Future
Word Products to open an XML file containing custom XML.
This injunction does not apply to any of the above actions wherein the Infringing and Future Word Products open an XML file as plain text.
Needless to say, Microsoft won’t pull Word off the market. The company has said it plans to appeal, and i4i actually sells XML products for Word, making that company reliant on the ecosystem. An agreement will be reached: probably one involving Microsoft signing a big check
View my
My PostsFacebookTwitterLinkedInJudge: Microsoft Banned from Selling Word in the USAugust 12th, 2009 | by Pete Cashmore143 Comments
Welcome to the world of surprising patent lawsuits. A Texas judge ruled Tuesday that Microsoft cannot sell Word – yes, Microsoft Word, the cornerstone of Microsoft Office – in the United States.
Toronto-based i4i Inc won an injunction against Microsoft regarding the company’s XML patents. In the words of i4i, the injunction “prohibits Microsoft from selling or importing to the United States any Microsoft Word products that have the capability of opening .XML, .DOCX or DOCM files (XML files) containing custom XML”. Microsoft has been given 60 days to comply, reports Seattle PI.
The injunction reads:
Microsoft Corporation is hereby permanently enjoined from performing the following actions with Microsoft Word 2003, Microsoft Word 2007, and Microsoft Word products not more than colorably different from Microsoft Word 2003 or Microsoft Word 2007 (collectively “Infringing and Future Word Products”) during the term of U.S. Patent No. 5,787,449:
1. selling, offering to sell, and/or importing in or into the United States any
Infringing and Future Word Products that have the capability of opening a .XML,
.DOCX, or .DOCM file (“an XML file”) containing custom XML;
2. using any Infringing and Future Word Products to open an XML file
containing custom XML;
3. instructing or encouraging anyone to use any Infringing and Future Word
Products to open an XML file containing custom XML;
4. providing support or assistance to anyone that describes how to use any infringing and Future Word Products to open an XML file containing custom XML;
and
5. testing, demonstrating, or marketing the ability of the Infringing and Future
Word Products to open an XML file containing custom XML.
This injunction does not apply to any of the above actions wherein the Infringing and Future Word Products open an XML file as plain text.
Needless to say, Microsoft won’t pull Word off the market. The company has said it plans to appeal, and i4i actually sells XML products for Word, making that company reliant on the ecosystem. An agreement will be reached: probably one involving Microsoft signing a big check
View my
My PostsFacebookTwitterLinkedInJudge: Microsoft Banned from Selling Word in the USAugust 12th, 2009 | by Pete Cashmore143 Comments
Welcome to the world of surprising patent lawsuits. A Texas judge ruled Tuesday that Microsoft cannot sell Word – yes, Microsoft Word, the cornerstone of Microsoft Office – in the United States.
Toronto-based i4i Inc won an injunction against Microsoft regarding the company’s XML patents. In the words of i4i, the injunction “prohibits Microsoft from selling or importing to the United States any Microsoft Word products that have the capability of opening .XML, .DOCX or DOCM files (XML files) containing custom XML”. Microsoft has been given 60 days to comply, reports Seattle PI.
The injunction reads:
Microsoft Corporation is hereby permanently enjoined from performing the following actions with Microsoft Word 2003, Microsoft Word 2007, and Microsoft Word products not more than colorably different from Microsoft Word 2003 or Microsoft Word 2007 (collectively “Infringing and Future Word Products”) during the term of U.S. Patent No. 5,787,449:
1. selling, offering to sell, and/or importing in or into the United States any
Infringing and Future Word Products that have the capability of opening a .XML,
.DOCX, or .DOCM file (“an XML file”) containing custom XML;
2. using any Infringing and Future Word Products to open an XML file
containing custom XML;
3. instructing or encouraging anyone to use any Infringing and Future Word
Products to open an XML file containing custom XML;
4. providing support or assistance to anyone that describes how to use any infringing and Future Word Products to open an XML file containing custom XML;
and
5. testing, demonstrating, or marketing the ability of the Infringing and Future
Word Products to open an XML file containing custom XML.
This injunction does not apply to any of the above actions wherein the Infringing and Future Word Products open an XML file as plain text.
Needless to say, Microsoft won’t pull Word off the market. The company has said it plans to appeal, and i4i actually sells XML products for Word, making that company reliant on the ecosystem. An agreement will be reached: probably one involving Microsoft signing a big check
View my
My PostsFacebookTwitterLinkedInJudge: Microsoft Banned from Selling Word in the USAugust 12th, 2009 | by Pete Cashmore143 Comments
Welcome to the world of surprising patent lawsuits. A Texas judge ruled Tuesday that Microsoft cannot sell Word – yes, Microsoft Word, the cornerstone of Microsoft Office – in the United States.
Toronto-based i4i Inc won an injunction against Microsoft regarding the company’s XML patents. In the words of i4i, the injunction “prohibits Microsoft from selling or importing to the United States any Microsoft Word products that have the capability of opening .XML, .DOCX or DOCM files (XML files) containing custom XML”. Microsoft has been given 60 days to comply, reports Seattle PI.
The injunction reads:
Microsoft Corporation is hereby permanently enjoined from performing the following actions with Microsoft Word 2003, Microsoft Word 2007, and Microsoft Word products not more than colorably different from Microsoft Word 2003 or Microsoft Word 2007 (collectively “Infringing and Future Word Products”) during the term of U.S. Patent No. 5,787,449:
1. selling, offering to sell, and/or importing in or into the United States any
Infringing and Future Word Products that have the capability of opening a .XML,
.DOCX, or .DOCM file (“an XML file”) containing custom XML;
2. using any Infringing and Future Word Products to open an XML file
containing custom XML;
3. instructing or encouraging anyone to use any Infringing and Future Word
Products to open an XML file containing custom XML;
4. providing support or assistance to anyone that describes how to use any infringing and Future Word Products to open an XML file containing custom XML;
and
5. testing, demonstrating, or marketing the ability of the Infringing and Future
Word Products to open an XML file containing custom XML.
This injunction does not apply to any of the above actions wherein the Infringing and Future Word Products open an XML file as plain text.
Needless to say, Microsoft won’t pull Word off the market. The company has said it plans to appeal, and i4i actually sells XML products for Word, making that company reliant on the ecosystem. An agreement will be reached: probably one involving Microsoft signing a big check
View my
My PostsFacebookTwitterLinkedInJudge: Microsoft Banned from Selling Word in the USAugust 12th, 2009 | by Pete Cashmore143 Comments
Welcome to the world of surprising patent lawsuits. A Texas judge ruled Tuesday that Microsoft cannot sell Word – yes, Microsoft Word, the cornerstone of Microsoft Office – in the United States.
Toronto-based i4i Inc won an injunction against Microsoft regarding the company’s XML patents. In the words of i4i, the injunction “prohibits Microsoft from selling or importing to the United States any Microsoft Word products that have the capability of opening .XML, .DOCX or DOCM files (XML files) containing custom XML”. Microsoft has been given 60 days to comply, reports Seattle PI.
The injunction reads:
Microsoft Corporation is hereby permanently enjoined from performing the following actions with Microsoft Word 2003, Microsoft Word 2007, and Microsoft Word products not more than colorably different from Microsoft Word 2003 or Microsoft Word 2007 (collectively “Infringing and Future Word Products”) during the term of U.S. Patent No. 5,787,449:
1. selling, offering to sell, and/or importing in or into the United States any
Infringing and Future Word Products that have the capability of opening a .XML,
.DOCX, or .DOCM file (“an XML file”) containing custom XML;
2. using any Infringing and Future Word Products to open an XML file
containing custom XML;
3. instructing or encouraging anyone to use any Infringing and Future Word
Products to open an XML file containing custom XML;
4. providing support or assistance to anyone that describes how to use any infringing and Future Word Products to open an XML file containing custom XML;
and
5. testing, demonstrating, or marketing the ability of the Infringing and Future
Word Products to open an XML file containing custom XML.
This injunction does not apply to any of the above actions wherein the Infringing and Future Word Products open an XML file as plain text.
Needless to say, Microsoft won’t pull Word off the market. The company has said it plans to appeal, and i4i actually sells XML products for Word, making that company reliant on the ecosystem. An agreement will be reached: probably one involving Microsoft signing a big check
View my
My PostsFacebookTwitterLinkedInJudge: Microsoft Banned from Selling Word in the USAugust 12th, 2009 | by Pete Cashmore143 Comments
Welcome to the world of surprising patent lawsuits. A Texas judge ruled Tuesday that Microsoft cannot sell Word – yes, Microsoft Word, the cornerstone of Microsoft Office – in the United States.
Toronto-based i4i Inc won an injunction against Microsoft regarding the company’s XML patents. In the words of i4i, the injunction “prohibits Microsoft from selling or importing to the United States any Microsoft Word products that have the capability of opening .XML, .DOCX or DOCM files (XML files) containing custom XML”. Microsoft has been given 60 days to comply, reports Seattle PI.
The injunction reads:
Microsoft Corporation is hereby permanently enjoined from performing the following actions with Microsoft Word 2003, Microsoft Word 2007, and Microsoft Word products not more than colorably different from Microsoft Word 2003 or Microsoft Word 2007 (collectively “Infringing and Future Word Products”) during the term of U.S. Patent No. 5,787,449:
1. selling, offering to sell, and/or importing in or into the United States any
Infringing and Future Word Products that have the capability of opening a .XML,
.DOCX, or .DOCM file (“an XML file”) containing custom XML;
2. using any Infringing and Future Word Products to open an XML file
containing custom XML;
3. instructing or encouraging anyone to use any Infringing and Future Word
Products to open an XML file containing custom XML;
4. providing support or assistance to anyone that describes how to use any infringing and Future Word Products to open an XML file containing custom XML;
and
5. testing, demonstrating, or marketing the ability of the Infringing and Future
Word Products to open an XML file containing custom XML.
This injunction does not apply to any of the above actions wherein the Infringing and Future Word Products open an XML file as plain text.
Needless to say, Microsoft won’t pull Word off the market. The company has said it plans to appeal, and i4i actually sells XML products for Word, making that company reliant on the ecosystem. An agreement will be reached: probably one involving Microsoft signing a big check
View my
My PostsFacebookTwitterLinkedInJudge: Microsoft Banned from Selling Word in the USAugust 12th, 2009 | by Pete Cashmore143 Comments
Welcome to the world of surprising patent lawsuits. A Texas judge ruled Tuesday that Microsoft cannot sell Word – yes, Microsoft Word, the cornerstone of Microsoft Office – in the United States.
Toronto-based i4i Inc won an injunction against Microsoft regarding the company’s XML patents. In the words of i4i, the injunction “prohibits Microsoft from selling or importing to the United States any Microsoft Word products that have the capability of opening .XML, .DOCX or DOCM files (XML files) containing custom XML”. Microsoft has been given 60 days to comply, reports Seattle PI.
The injunction reads:
Microsoft Corporation is hereby permanently enjoined from performing the following actions with Microsoft Word 2003, Microsoft Word 2007, and Microsoft Word products not more than colorably different from Microsoft Word 2003 or Microsoft Word 2007 (collectively “Infringing and Future Word Products”) during the term of U.S. Patent No. 5,787,449:
1. selling, offering to sell, and/or importing in or into the United States any
Infringing and Future Word Products that have the capability of opening a .XML,
.DOCX, or .DOCM file (“an XML file”) containing custom XML;
2. using any Infringing and Future Word Products to open an XML file
containing custom XML;
3. instructing or encouraging anyone to use any Infringing and Future Word
Products to open an XML file containing custom XML;
4. providing support or assistance to anyone that describes how to use any infringing and Future Word Products to open an XML file containing custom XML;
and
5. testing, demonstrating, or marketing the ability of the Infringing and Future
Word Products to open an XML file containing custom XML.
This injunction does not apply to any of the above actions wherein the Infringing and Future Word Products open an XML file as plain text.
Needless to say, Microsoft won’t pull Word off the market. The company has said it plans to appeal, and i4i actually sells XML products for Word, making that company reliant on the ecosystem. An agreement will be reached: probably one involving Microsoft signing a big check
View my
My PostsFacebookTwitterLinkedInJudge: Microsoft Banned from Selling Word in the USAugust 12th, 2009 | by Pete Cashmore143 Comments
Welcome to the world of surprising patent lawsuits. A Texas judge ruled Tuesday that Microsoft cannot sell Word – yes, Microsoft Word, the cornerstone of Microsoft Office – in the United States.
Toronto-based i4i Inc won an injunction against Microsoft regarding the company’s XML patents. In the words of i4i, the injunction “prohibits Microsoft from selling or importing to the United States any Microsoft Word products that have the capability of opening .XML, .DOCX or DOCM files (XML files) containing custom XML”. Microsoft has been given 60 days to comply, reports Seattle PI.
The injunction reads:
Microsoft Corporation is hereby permanently enjoined from performing the following actions with Microsoft Word 2003, Microsoft Word 2007, and Microsoft Word products not more than colorably different from Microsoft Word 2003 or Microsoft Word 2007 (collectively “Infringing and Future Word Products”) during the term of U.S. Patent No. 5,787,449:
1. selling, offering to sell, and/or importing in or into the United States any
Infringing and Future Word Products that have the capability of opening a .XML,
.DOCX, or .DOCM file (“an XML file”) containing custom XML;
2. using any Infringing and Future Word Products to open an XML file
containing custom XML;
3. instructing or encouraging anyone to use any Infringing and Future Word
Products to open an XML file containing custom XML;
4. providing support or assistance to anyone that describes how to use any infringing and Future Word Products to open an XML file containing custom XML;
and
5. testing, demonstrating, or marketing the ability of the Infringing and Future
Word Products to open an XML file containing custom XML.
This injunction does not apply to any of the above actions wherein the Infringing and Future Word Products open an XML file as plain text.
Needless to say, Microsoft won’t pull Word off the market. The company has said it plans to appeal, and i4i actually sells XML products for Word, making that company reliant on the ecosystem. An agreement will be reached: probably one involving Microsoft signing a big check
View my
My PostsFacebookTwitterLinkedInJudge: Microsoft Banned from Selling Word in the USAugust 12th, 2009 | by Pete Cashmore143 Comments
Welcome to the world of surprising patent lawsuits. A Texas judge ruled Tuesday that Microsoft cannot sell Word – yes, Microsoft Word, the cornerstone of Microsoft Office – in the United States.
Toronto-based i4i Inc won an injunction against Microsoft regarding the company’s XML patents. In the words of i4i, the injunction “prohibits Microsoft from selling or importing to the United States any Microsoft Word products that have the capability of opening .XML, .DOCX or DOCM files (XML files) containing custom XML”. Microsoft has been given 60 days to comply, reports Seattle PI.
The injunction reads:
Microsoft Corporation is hereby permanently enjoined from performing the following actions with Microsoft Word 2003, Microsoft Word 2007, and Microsoft Word products not more than colorably different from Microsoft Word 2003 or Microsoft Word 2007 (collectively “Infringing and Future Word Products”) during the term of U.S. Patent No. 5,787,449:
1. selling, offering to sell, and/or importing in or into the United States any
Infringing and Future Word Products that have the capability of opening a .XML,
.DOCX, or .DOCM file (“an XML file”) containing custom XML;
2. using any Infringing and Future Word Products to open an XML file
containing custom XML;
3. instructing or encouraging anyone to use any Infringing and Future Word
Products to open an XML file containing custom XML;
4. providing support or assistance to anyone that describes how to use any infringing and Future Word Products to open an XML file containing custom XML;
and
5. testing, demonstrating, or marketing the ability of the Infringing and Future
Word Products to open an XML file containing custom XML.
This injunction does not apply to any of the above actions wherein the Infringing and Future Word Products open an XML file as plain text.
Needless to say, Microsoft won’t pull Word off the market. The company has said it plans to appeal, and i4i actually sells XML products for Word, making that company reliant on the ecosystem. An agreement will be reached: probably one involving Microsoft signing a big check
View my
My PostsFacebookTwitterLinkedInJudge: Microsoft Banned from Selling Word in the USAugust 12th, 2009 | by Pete Cashmore143 Comments
Welcome to the world of surprising patent lawsuits. A Texas judge ruled Tuesday that Microsoft cannot sell Word – yes, Microsoft Word, the cornerstone of Microsoft Office – in the United States.
Toronto-based i4i Inc won an injunction against Microsoft regarding the company’s XML patents. In the words of i4i, the injunction “prohibits Microsoft from selling or importing to the United States any Microsoft Word products that have the capability of opening .XML, .DOCX or DOCM files (XML files) containing custom XML”. Microsoft has been given 60 days to comply, reports Seattle PI.
The injunction reads:
Microsoft Corporation is hereby permanently enjoined from performing the following actions with Microsoft Word 2003, Microsoft Word 2007, and Microsoft Word products not more than colorably different from Microsoft Word 2003 or Microsoft Word 2007 (collectively “Infringing and Future Word Products”) during the term of U.S. Patent No. 5,787,449:
1. selling, offering to sell, and/or importing in or into the United States any
Infringing and Future Word Products that have the capability of opening a .XML,
.DOCX, or .DOCM file (“an XML file”) containing custom XML;
2. using any Infringing and Future Word Products to open an XML file
containing custom XML;
3. instructing or encouraging anyone to use any Infringing and Future Word
Products to open an XML file containing custom XML;
4. providing support or assistance to anyone that describes how to use any infringing and Future Word Products to open an XML file containing custom XML;
and
5. testing, demonstrating, or marketing the ability of the Infringing and Future
Word Products to open an XML file containing custom XML.
This injunction does not apply to any of the above actions wherein the Infringing and Future Word Products open an XML file as plain text.
Needless to say, Microsoft won’t pull Word off the market. The company has said it plans to appeal, and i4i actually sells XML products for Word, making that company reliant on the ecosystem. An agreement will be reached: probably one involving Microsoft signing a big check
View my
My PostsFacebookTwitterLinkedInJudge: Microsoft Banned from Selling Word in the USAugust 12th, 2009 | by Pete Cashmore143 Comments
Welcome to the world of surprising patent lawsuits. A Texas judge ruled Tuesday that Microsoft cannot sell Word – yes, Microsoft Word, the cornerstone of Microsoft Office – in the United States.
Toronto-based i4i Inc won an injunction against Microsoft regarding the company’s XML patents. In the words of i4i, the injunction “prohibits Microsoft from selling or importing to the United States any Microsoft Word products that have the capability of opening .XML, .DOCX or DOCM files (XML files) containing custom XML”. Microsoft has been given 60 days to comply, reports Seattle PI.
The injunction reads:
Microsoft Corporation is hereby permanently enjoined from performing the following actions with Microsoft Word 2003, Microsoft Word 2007, and Microsoft Word products not more than colorably different from Microsoft Word 2003 or Microsoft Word 2007 (collectively “Infringing and Future Word Products”) during the term of U.S. Patent No. 5,787,449:
1. selling, offering to sell, and/or importing in or into the United States any
Infringing and Future Word Products that have the capability of opening a .XML,
.DOCX, or .DOCM file (“an XML file”) containing custom XML;
2. using any Infringing and Future Word Products to open an XML file
containing custom XML;
3. instructing or encouraging anyone to use any Infringing and Future Word
Products to open an XML file containing custom XML;
4. providing support or assistance to anyone that describes how to use any infringing and Future Word Products to open an XML file containing custom XML;
and
5. testing, demonstrating, or marketing the ability of the Infringing and Future
Word Products to open an XML file containing custom XML.
This injunction does not apply to any of the above actions wherein the Infringing and Future Word Products open an XML file as plain text.
Needless to say, Microsoft won’t pull Word off the market. The company has said it plans to appeal, and i4i actually sells XML products for Word, making that company reliant on the ecosystem. An agreement will be reached: probably one involving Microsoft signing a big check
PATENT INFRINGEMENT 290 MIL for one patent Virnetx has three and only 38,000,000 shares O/S Where is my calculator?
i4i sweet revenge
This could be the case the CEO talked about on the CC.
Things just keep getting worse for Microsoft. Yesterday it became public knowledge that the desktop software giant had not only been sued for patent infringement by i4i, but that they were ordered to pay over $290 million, and will have 60 days to comply with a court-ordered injunction against the sale of Word.
Unfortunately, facts of the case are rolling out and an uncovered email from a member of Microsoft’s XML for Word development team proves that they were aware of i4i’s XML technology.
Information Week reports that court records include an email from Martin Sawicki, a Microsoft employee, possibly dated prior to the release Office 2003, that reads, “We saw [i4i's products] some time ago and met its creators. Word 11 will make it obsolete…It looks great for XP though.”
This is pretty damning evidence, and likely one of the primary reasons that the jury voted against Microsoft. Given the nature of the email, it’s hard not to believe that Microsoft will be forced to settle with i4i for a hefty sum, though first things first, an appeal is most certainly pending.
Of course, Microsoft Word is too instrumental to the Office suite of products to go anywhere. Worst case scenario, Microsoft will pay a settlement and update their software on the market with a patch to get around the restrictions of the ban.
As information Week points out, “Davis said any version of Word that opens documents in plain text only, or which strips a document of custom XML through a process known as a transform, would be free from his order. That leaves the door open for Microsoft to issue a patch that alters MS Word’s functionality in such a way as to circumvent the ban.”
Tags: i4i, microsoft, microsoft
Things just keep getting worse for Microsoft. Yesterday it became public knowledge that the desktop software giant had not only been sued for patent infringement by i4i, but that they were ordered to pay over $290 million, and will have 60 days to comply with a court-ordered injunction against the sale of Word.
Unfortunately, facts of the case are rolling out and an uncovered email from a member of Microsoft’s XML for Word development team proves that they were aware of i4i’s XML technology.
Information Week reports that court records include an email from Martin Sawicki, a Microsoft employee, possibly dated prior to the release Office 2003, that reads, “We saw [i4i's products] some time ago and met its creators. Word 11 will make it obsolete…It looks great for XP though.”
This is pretty damning evidence, and likely one of the primary reasons that the jury voted against Microsoft. Given the nature of the email, it’s hard not to believe that Microsoft will be forced to settle with i4i for a hefty sum, though first things first, an appeal is most certainly pending.
Of course, Microsoft Word is too instrumental to the Office suite of products to go anywhere. Worst case scenario, Microsoft will pay a settlement and update their software on the market with a patch to get around the restrictions of the ban.
As information Week points out, “Davis said any version of Word that opens documents in plain text only, or which strips a document of custom XML through a process known as a transform, would be free from his order. That leaves the door open for Microsoft to issue a patch that alters MS Word’s functionality in such a way as to circumvent the ban.”
Tags: i4i, microsoft, microsoft
Things just keep getting worse for Microsoft. Yesterday it became public knowledge that the desktop software giant had not only been sued for patent infringement by i4i, but that they were ordered to pay over $290 million, and will have 60 days to comply with a court-ordered injunction against the sale of Word.
Unfortunately, facts of the case are rolling out and an uncovered email from a member of Microsoft’s XML for Word development team proves that they were aware of i4i’s XML technology.
Information Week reports that court records include an email from Martin Sawicki, a Microsoft employee, possibly dated prior to the release Office 2003, that reads, “We saw [i4i's products] some time ago and met its creators. Word 11 will make it obsolete…It looks great for XP though.”
This is pretty damning evidence, and likely one of the primary reasons that the jury voted against Microsoft. Given the nature of the email, it’s hard not to believe that Microsoft will be forced to settle with i4i for a hefty sum, though first things first, an appeal is most certainly pending.
Of course, Microsoft Word is too instrumental to the Office suite of products to go anywhere. Worst case scenario, Microsoft will pay a settlement and update their software on the market with a patch to get around the restrictions of the ban.
As information Week points out, “Davis said any version of Word that opens documents in plain text only, or which strips a document of custom XML through a process known as a transform, would be free from his order. That leaves the door open for Microsoft to issue a patch that alters MS Word’s functionality in such a way as to circumvent the ban.”
Tags: i4i, microsoft, microsoft
Things just keep getting worse for Microsoft. Yesterday it became public knowledge that the desktop software giant had not only been sued for patent infringement by i4i, but that they were ordered to pay over $290 million, and will have 60 days to comply with a court-ordered injunction against the sale of Word.
Unfortunately, facts of the case are rolling out and an uncovered email from a member of Microsoft’s XML for Word development team proves that they were aware of i4i’s XML technology.
Information Week reports that court records include an email from Martin Sawicki, a Microsoft employee, possibly dated prior to the release Office 2003, that reads, “We saw [i4i's products] some time ago and met its creators. Word 11 will make it obsolete…It looks great for XP though.”
This is pretty damning evidence, and likely one of the primary reasons that the jury voted against Microsoft. Given the nature of the email, it’s hard not to believe that Microsoft will be forced to settle with i4i for a hefty sum, though first things first, an appeal is most certainly pending.
Of course, Microsoft Word is too instrumental to the Office suite of products to go anywhere. Worst case scenario, Microsoft will pay a settlement and update their software on the market with a patch to get around the restrictions of the ban.
As information Week points out, “Davis said any version of Word that opens documents in plain text only, or which strips a document of custom XML through a process known as a transform, would be free from his order. That leaves the door open for Microsoft to issue a patch that alters MS Word’s functionality in such a way as to circumvent the ban.”
Tags: i4i, microsoft, microsoft
Things just keep getting worse for Microsoft. Yesterday it became public knowledge that the desktop software giant had not only been sued for patent infringement by i4i, but that they were ordered to pay over $290 million, and will have 60 days to comply with a court-ordered injunction against the sale of Word.
Unfortunately, facts of the case are rolling out and an uncovered email from a member of Microsoft’s XML for Word development team proves that they were aware of i4i’s XML technology.
Information Week reports that court records include an email from Martin Sawicki, a Microsoft employee, possibly dated prior to the release Office 2003, that reads, “We saw [i4i's products] some time ago and met its creators. Word 11 will make it obsolete…It looks great for XP though.”
This is pretty damning evidence, and likely one of the primary reasons that the jury voted against Microsoft. Given the nature of the email, it’s hard not to believe that Microsoft will be forced to settle with i4i for a hefty sum, though first things first, an appeal is most certainly pending.
Of course, Microsoft Word is too instrumental to the Office suite of products to go anywhere. Worst case scenario, Microsoft will pay a settlement and update their software on the market with a patch to get around the restrictions of the ban.
As information Week points out, “Davis said any version of Word that opens documents in plain text only, or which strips a document of custom XML through a process known as a transform, would be free from his order. That leaves the door open for Microsoft to issue a patch that alters MS Word’s functionality in such a way as to circumvent the ban.”
Tags: i4i, microsoft, microsoft
Things just keep getting worse for Microsoft. Yesterday it became public knowledge that the desktop software giant had not only been sued for patent infringement by i4i, but that they were ordered to pay over $290 million, and will have 60 days to comply with a court-ordered injunction against the sale of Word.
Unfortunately, facts of the case are rolling out and an uncovered email from a member of Microsoft’s XML for Word development team proves that they were aware of i4i’s XML technology.
Information Week reports that court records include an email from Martin Sawicki, a Microsoft employee, possibly dated prior to the release Office 2003, that reads, “We saw [i4i's products] some time ago and met its creators. Word 11 will make it obsolete…It looks great for XP though.”
This is pretty damning evidence, and likely one of the primary reasons that the jury voted against Microsoft. Given the nature of the email, it’s hard not to believe that Microsoft will be forced to settle with i4i for a hefty sum, though first things first, an appeal is most certainly pending.
Of course, Microsoft Word is too instrumental to the Office suite of products to go anywhere. Worst case scenario, Microsoft will pay a settlement and update their software on the market with a patch to get around the restrictions of the ban.
As information Week points out, “Davis said any version of Word that opens documents in plain text only, or which strips a document of custom XML through a process known as a transform, would be free from his order. That leaves the door open for Microsoft to issue a patch that alters MS Word’s functionality in such a way as to circumvent the ban.”
Tags: i4i, microsoft, microsoft
Things just keep getting worse for Microsoft. Yesterday it became public knowledge that the desktop software giant had not only been sued for patent infringement by i4i, but that they were ordered to pay over $290 million, and will have 60 days to comply with a court-ordered injunction against the sale of Word.
Unfortunately, facts of the case are rolling out and an uncovered email from a member of Microsoft’s XML for Word development team proves that they were aware of i4i’s XML technology.
Information Week reports that court records include an email from Martin Sawicki, a Microsoft employee, possibly dated prior to the release Office 2003, that reads, “We saw [i4i's products] some time ago and met its creators. Word 11 will make it obsolete…It looks great for XP though.”
This is pretty damning evidence, and likely one of the primary reasons that the jury voted against Microsoft. Given the nature of the email, it’s hard not to believe that Microsoft will be forced to settle with i4i for a hefty sum, though first things first, an appeal is most certainly pending.
Of course, Microsoft Word is too instrumental to the Office suite of products to go anywhere. Worst case scenario, Microsoft will pay a settlement and update their software on the market with a patch to get around the restrictions of the ban.
As information Week points out, “Davis said any version of Word that opens documents in plain text only, or which strips a document of custom XML through a process known as a transform, would be free from his order. That leaves the door open for Microsoft to issue a patch that alters MS Word’s functionality in such a way as to circumvent the ban.”
Tags: i4i, microsoft, microsoft
Things just keep getting worse for Microsoft. Yesterday it became public knowledge that the desktop software giant had not only been sued for patent infringement by i4i, but that they were ordered to pay over $290 million, and will have 60 days to comply with a court-ordered injunction against the sale of Word.
Unfortunately, facts of the case are rolling out and an uncovered email from a member of Microsoft’s XML for Word development team proves that they were aware of i4i’s XML technology.
Information Week reports that court records include an email from Martin Sawicki, a Microsoft employee, possibly dated prior to the release Office 2003, that reads, “We saw [i4i's products] some time ago and met its creators. Word 11 will make it obsolete…It looks great for XP though.”
This is pretty damning evidence, and likely one of the primary reasons that the jury voted against Microsoft. Given the nature of the email, it’s hard not to believe that Microsoft will be forced to settle with i4i for a hefty sum, though first things first, an appeal is most certainly pending.
Of course, Microsoft Word is too instrumental to the Office suite of products to go anywhere. Worst case scenario, Microsoft will pay a settlement and update their software on the market with a patch to get around the restrictions of the ban.
As information Week points out, “Davis said any version of Word that opens documents in plain text only, or which strips a document of custom XML through a process known as a transform, would be free from his order. That leaves the door open for Microsoft to issue a patch that alters MS Word’s functionality in such a way as to circumvent the ban.”
Tags: i4i, microsoft, microsoft