I know how you feel and many of us have gone over and over this for what seems like a century but it is what it is. For starters and I haven't read the 8-K nor am I smart enough to understand many things so is the reason I always like "Alan" and "Boxsterfan" to make some type of comment on this case. They are both educated. I am grateful that they still post message here and are willing to make comments.
So as for our CEO drumming up business other than the lawsuit I would say we have only 1 chance to make money and that is the lawsuit involving Intel. ASs I have said and what you can review HDC past and patents I don't need to say anymore about that but....and referencing part of the 8-k but just the first item I spotted or at least believe helps us as follows and will be highlighted.......
(8-k) >
(In recent years, divining the bounds of these judicial exceptions has proved increasingly challenging, thanks in large part to the Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). There the Court established a two-step framework for determining whether a patent claims an ineligible concept. First, determine whether the claims are “directed to” a judicial exception. Id. at 217. If so, proceed to the second step and “consider the elements of each claim both individually and as an ordered combination to determine whether the additional elements transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (omitting quotations).
Now that is all I wish to stir up right now and may mean nothing I mean I'm just an old man and not a whippersnapper like the insulting dog in our message thread.
