I think they should do a Patent review 3:
It would read like this:
Upon analysis of the patents, and the company's response, I return again to this explanatory drivel. Although nothing is really being said, a lot of words are put in the written form. Sure, one could say that the company is omitting a sidestep in the heterogeneous nature of populations of words, but such words would be extraordinary when taken in totality. In truth, only words with meaning are of shareholder value.
Thus, it is our opinion, for the third time, that when we cover the patents, without any legal or scientific expertise, we cover it in its entirety. And when we use the word cover, we mean not coverage in the legal sense, for we have no ability in that area, but in fact, we mean in a literary sense, a discussion coverage, which has the meaning of embraced and comprehended in the common tongue.
We refer again to articles 1 and 2, which aforementioned the thoughts that were not exactly coherent, but yet conveyed something in writing that was subject to written scrutiny. Only now can our naked short position be signaled to the others who also wish to bear down on the price per share, because the shareholders must be tempted to sell, based upon this nonsense. Unfortunately, since we are not having any volume on this manipulation, we will issue report # 4 tomorrow.
