Encounter Development Technologies Inc. (ENTI)

[kgcol5118]

Different Stock but should answer question on AH seq

Re: 24.19 After hours -- plainly an out of sequence trade, not from AH - how to tell the real AH trades from the late-submitted trades from before 4:00 PM -- downdraft out of sync with the good news of the Rambus win today
>> And we do not know if the 24,000 share trade was an out of sequence Trade reported in AH. <<

I think we do know, and that the 24,700 share trade at $24.19 reported at 20:01 was clearly an out of sequence trade, i.e., a trade actually executed during the 9:30AM - 4:00 trading day, but reported late. As happens all the time.

One bit of evidence is that the trade's price is crazy, 1.64 above the previous trade at $22.55 two minutes earlier, at 19:59. The large block size is also anomalous for AH trading in RMBS.

But how do we know for sure that it's a trade from earlier, and not from AH?

It appears that the NASDAQ feed of AH quotes includes both actual AH trades and out of sequence trades.

You can tell them apart by comparing the NASDAQ feed with another feed that includes only AH trades, but not out of sequence trades. I get these on my iPhone, through the free CNBC "app", which I'm pretty sure is the same feed available from the CNBC URL on the web.

Today, the last AH trade reported by CNBC was at 22.50 and 7:59 PM. NASDAQ reported one more trade, the 24,700 trade at 24.19 at 8:01.

Compare: http://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/ExtendedTradingTrades.aspx?selected=RMBS&mkttype=after
with: http://data.cnbc.com/quotes/rmbs As noted, I'm pretty sure this CNBC web feed is the same as I get through the iPhone CNBC app.

See also my prior post on this: http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=3666&mn=508535&pt=msg&mid=8860325

I was surprised, when I exited a movie at about 6:00, to see RMBS down a chunk in AH. After reading many of this evening's posts, I'm persuaded that the downward move is just another knee-jerk reaction, unjustified by the news, which pretty clearly means Rambus will win at the ITC in two months. Of the two possible things the ITC may want to thinking about with the aid of the additional briefing -- patent exhaustion and the bond amount -- you don't logically reach those questions until after you've decided that the Rambus patents are valid and infringed by the NVDA products at issue. Those questions just don't make any sense, are just not relevant, if there's no infringement of valid patents.

As for exhaustion, Rambus seems to have much the better argument, clearly enough that it's reasonable to assume that the ITC is just acting out of an excess of caution, to protect its ruling on appeal by ruling on an issue it hadn't passed on, first raised in a NVDA surreply. Better to make a decision that the CAFC may want to defer to, rather than let it be argued in the first instance in the CAFC -- just basic conservative jurisprudence.

As for the bond amount, the bond is relevant only during the appeal period, and assuming CAFC affirmance, the exclusion orders click into place and NVDA takes the EU deal. I don't see that it makes any difference whether the bond is based on a 2% royalty or a 0.2 % royalty. NVDA has plenty of cash, so it can pay for whatever bond is required by the ITC, so the pressure on NVDA is minimal. Our big recovery from NVDA will be in judge Illston's court in any event, and the CAFC appeal in Micron/Hynix is still the main event on the card.

So, although the AH downdraft in the PPS may not reflect this, it seems tolerably clear that today's action signals a Rambus win.

Although it would be nice if it were a win today, not just one clearly indicated for two months from now.