Back from my vacation. Volume up, stock price up.... looked in YMB and Frank posting about Samsung getting close. Samsung pigeon holed and cannot get out. Trapped like the rats they are.
Frank12 hours ago
Samsung did not want the absolute obligation to supply Netlist and tried to amend the contract the day before the supposed signature. Fortunately Netlist realized and asked to delete this last minute change from Samsung to maintain the full requirement nature of the contract.
Samsung was annoyed by that, but signed because they knew the value of the Netlist patents- they needed the patents. But Samsung was very unhappy with this obligation to supply Netlist (that explains also their behavior already days after the signature on the tax issue).
Samsung made billions with their products with Netlist technology and now they claim, that they did not have the obligation to supply Netlist with their products…….even though the contract is cristal clear.
This is case ist lost for Samsung and very soon we will get our reward as Netlist investors: favorable court decisions on motions in this case, and then damages paid by Samsung plus retrospectively licenses fees beginning from the day Samsung has breached the contract and even then: Samsung will have no valid Netlist licences for their products - once the court says what is written on paper: Samsung had the obligation to supply but did not.
The damages alone may be good money, but the real thing are the licenses !
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
