ellismd, I'd think very carefully about continueing with this course of action. I'm not a lawyer but we need to think of the possible negatives of an action besides the positives we hope to see. There are two main, possible positives I see;
1) Short-term rise in price as we bring more public attention to IDCC and the prospects of a victory. Most of the new money in the stock that might enter, IMO, woulld be short-term minded, speculative money. Traders could do well. Longs could use the opportunity to increase their shares taking advantage of the highs and lows. Anyone buying in anticipation of selling after a story driven spike damn sure has no reason to heap critisism on whatever they think management has done in the past. Buy and hold longs probably would not enjoy the gut wrenching ride.
2) Increase pressure on ERICY, through public opinion and possible short-term pressure on stock price, to settle. IMO not likely to have the effect desired. ERICY has shown for 10 years that they are pretty tough, long-term minded and will make decisions based on whether they think they can win or not. Could ratchet up pressure on other infringers to settle but IMO that would not happen either. IMO, they have decided that the safest course is to get the same rate as everyone else rather than gamble on getting a lower rate early but risking paying much more if they are wrong.
Possible negatives;
1) Not likely that public display of the evidence will help IDCC at all in a trial. IMO, most here are for the long term and would not sell on the rise gained from a WS story. The potential for a news release announcing the settlement we've been anticipating, could come at any hour. Most longs would not want to miss out and those overextended on margin would not likely have learned from their past experiances. They especially would not enjoy the roller coaster.
2) ERICY could seize on the predudicial nature of the published information as reasons for denying the admission of that information. Remember that we have seen a number of legal things done in the past that we didn't understand. Who knows what little could cause an adverse ruling? This potential could possibly also affect IDCC. Do we know whether or not IDCC would consider the release of the information helpful? If not, they might feel they have to settle for less than they wanted rather than go to trial.
These are the things I see. What do you think will happen? What could happen? How would you feel and what would you do in either case.
AI
