The more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation is.
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.
Definitely object to this:
I like the way he does the math :
Coincidence? Netlist reports on finra short due date 11/2.
An old term for this kind behavior is “full of themselves”.
What will Samsung do to get their license back? Based on their track record so far they will dig a bigger infringement hole.
Sometimes I find stating the obvious funny.
That made me think of the phase "too clever by half".
LOL
Yeah, not sure how much culture plays in. I smell greed and sometimes panic.
Totally agree, although in a rational world they negotiate a settlement that covers all that, so all can be home for the holidays. The other thing is, it is possible, even probable, a jury is Netlists shot to a fair deal on boc. Maybe better and only way, to separate issues into different cases.
So your theory is they are dumb? Ok …My theory is attitude is law does not apply to Samsung which is dumb and looking at top leadership comes from the top.
I also think Sheaby said in this case damages is a good thing to take to trial.
Yes
To who? I don’t think it was inevitable to Samsung. Maybe they will learn from this mistake. SK reached a point where they decided to cooperate after years.
Now besides damages for boc they lose use of patents and face infringement battle?
My question is why did Samsung blow themselves up like this?
$6’s sure feel like $2’s last spring.
Yeah they use “standard business practices “ as the argument. But the big fish here is not damages for boc. Even though some will no doubt be paid maybe even a lot. The big fish is being able to deny Samsung use of patents.
Yeah, Netlist essentially traded all their treasure for a sweet deal from Samsung. Yet as of today Samsung is still using Netlist patents.
Samsung has been trying to paint Netlist as incompetent. Clearly it was just the opposite. "Let's fade Netlist's success and go straight for the end users." That is what they did.
Delaware will read these doc's too and not take the case.
BolliverShagnasty
Bullish
16m
$NLST
Neither party requested the Judge seal any portion of his decision and it also sets the final pretrial conference date and the Trial date. Nov 15th and November 30th. So in 25 days Final Pretrial Conference and in 40 days Trial. Now we know why Samsung filed in Delaware because the trial would not be needed if they won. The remainder of this trial going to be about Damages Netlist receives.
https://stocktwits.com/BolliverShagnasty/message/394140131
3 events —- what does Scarsi have to say, what does Armstrong have to say and Netlist Q3 report plus CC. In no particular order.
Oh my I was up at 3:30 am. I’m liking Scarsi so far lots of common sense. Rather than wait for Samsung to come back with a request for opportunity to redact, Scarsi is ahead of their game with a time frame in hand. That’s how it looks to me.
Judge Scarsi, a bit-o-Texas in California:
BolliverShagnasty
04:09 AM
$NLST
Bring it all into the light of day!! Thanks Judge Scarsi!!
FYI in Judge Scarsi sealed order that will be revealed 7 days from the 14th he denied to seal the following - ECF 141
08/16/2021 141 APPLICATION to file document in support of Plaintiff Netlist Inc.'s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment under seal filed by Plaintiff Netlist Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit 15, # 3 Exhibit 16, # 4 Exhibit 18, # 5 Exhibit 19, # 6 Exhibit 20, # 7 Exhibit 21, # 8 Exhibit 22, # 9 Exhibit 23, # 10 Exhibit 32, # 11 Exhibit 33, # 12 Exhibit 36, # 13 Exhibit 40, # 14 Exhibit 43, # 15 Exhibit 44, # 16 Exhibit 48, # 17 Exhibit 49, # 18 Exhibit 50, # 19 Exhibit 51, # 20 Exhibit 52, # 21 Exhibit 53)(LaMagna, Raymond) (Entered: 08/16/2021)
That is ECF 141 which is Netlists supporting documents for Partrial Summary Judgement! We will get to see everything regarding the evidence submitted for this Partial Summary Judgement! COOL!!!
Of course the burning question folks have after reading that post is why ask for indemnification when there has been no ruling?
Great post: BolliverShagnasty
Bullish
11:53 AM
$NLST
If you read the entire 82 page filing from Samsung in Delaware they attempt to re-litigate the following
The current JDLA case in California. (Only impression you get is Samsung must have lost)
The Google Case with the same tired rejected Google arguments (Google asked Sammy for indemnification so they must have lost too)
This document embraces the Google arguments in such a way that you are once again reminded that there must have been coordination and Collusion between those 2 parties to harm Netlist! (Samsung phones and Google Android are pretty cozy right?) Remember when Samsung was so upset when Jason Sheasby filed a "Notice of Appearance" in the Samsung case? Everyone knew that was suspicious. When Netlist responds to this filing, what else will we learn now that the "cats out of the bag" with Google and also a new name "Lenovo"? We can be sure Netlist has more information and at this point I think we can assume it must be damning! We are 23 days away from the motion hearing in the Google case and through Samsung we just learned that Google has asked Samsung to indemnify them? First round of trial filings in the Samsung case in California are due the 25th. 1 week from now! What do we see next? Google settlement? Samsung Settlement? License to Lenovo? Doe Micron say screw this and step forward and settle?
I think there is a real possibility that all of these cases could be settled by the end of the year and Netlist goes forward with Rocket Engines Roaring. The more we know, what benefit is there for the infringers to attempt to drag this out any longer? When these cases are finished, Google still has several Governments that want to talk to them about Antitrust issues! Wouldn't it best for all parties concerned to put this in the rear view mirror?
A little ponder on recent events.... Per Samsung expanding to Del. Judge Scarsi will still continue in CA. I’m curious what Netlist attorneys will respond with in Delaware. What if Scarsi grants partial summary judge that Samsung breached by with holding tax $$$. Netlist is arguing that based on NY law damages do not have to be proved for breach of contract ruling. And it is boc ruling that voids the whole contract thus also voiding Netlist obligation to license to Samsung. I think that’s Netlists strategy. If that’s right, I don’t see how what Samsung is suing Netlist for in Del is relevant. I mean Scarsi already has his ruling and is just waiting for any other requests for redactions before publication.
Excerpt from the original Netlist and Samsung Agreement
"At Samsung, we are taking the lead in defining the right standards for storage class memory with industry partners, and creating new markets for DRAM and NAND flash memory based on the new standards. By using a standardized hybrid storage solution, our customers will be able to efficiently extract intelligence from large amounts of data in storage systems," said Dr. Jung-Bae Lee, Senior Vice President of Memory Product Planning and Application Engineering Team, Samsung Electronics.
"We are pleased to partner with Netlist, a company with a long-history of innovative memory technology solutions and IP, to productize and drive broad market adoption of this new standard," he added.
And now..
Samsung asks a Delaware federal court to declare that it doesn’t infringe four patents Netlist claims are essential to industry-standard technologies for computer memory."
https://www.reddit.com/r/NLST/comments/q9vwta/excerpt_from_the_original_netlist_and_samsung/
What do I think? Any piece of a win against Samsung will void Netlists contract with them. They will have to choose between no relationship with NLST patents/ infringement battle or sit down and negotiate a new contract. Only this time the contract will include spelled out punitive monetary damage for failure to comply.
If Netlist wins the claim 16 battle with G the pps will go to double digits.
A win for claim 16 = double digits for pps. It is rare that I go out on a limb on pps but claim 16 is the backbone of the case at this point and will allow for future wins jmo of course.
That's a keeper for 2022. Only need 7 of those for Netlist to do well.
Only a month out from N v G news and now N v S confirmed will have some news in between.
Excellent plan:
Order issued by Scarsi and the entire thing is sealed for 7 days!!!
From yahoo and GSOP912
10/14/2021 186 SEALED ORDER re: Motions for Summary Judgment and Related Applications (ECF Nos. 141 , 143 , 145 , 146 , 147 , 149 , 150 , and 169 by Judge Mark C. Scarsi. The Court denies the surplus application to seal (ECF No. 141 ) and grants the other applications to seal (ECF Nos. 143 , 146 147 , 149 , 169 ) subject to the exceptions set forth in this Order. Within seven days, the parties shall (1) file the documents permitted to be sealed under seal pursuant to Local Rule 79-5.2.2(c) and (2) submit revised redacted versions of documents containing information the Court declines to seal pursuant to Local Rule 79-5.2.2(a). The Court grants in part and denies in part the motions for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 145 and 150 ). See document for details. The Court provisionally seals this Order. Within seven days of the issuance of this Order, the parties shall file a joint statement as to whether any matter stated in this Order is information that should remain under seal. Thereafter, the Court will determine whether any portions of this Order should be redacted in the version filed on the public docket. (smo) (Entered: 10/14/2021)
Accumulation w/o wounding the chart jmo.
The 3yr weekly could breakout albeit slower. It has remained above the 20 day and pulled the lower band above the 200 day. It is close to topping the 9 day.
You’re welcome gftb
Ok I remember now all that stuff got bumped to 11/10/2021
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
Motion for Summary Judgment
Motion to Amend/Correct
Motion to Strike
This hearing was vacated, judge will decide on the papers attorneys delivered to the court on the subject.