InvestorsHub Logo

drkazmd65

11/10/10 11:46 AM

#38895 RE: conagra #38892

getcarter - IF as you say you really "don't care if you take me seriously or not." THEN smile happily (preferably to yourself) at your amazing intellect relative to those of us deluded longs every time you have been demonstrated to be correct and we wrong.

I promise you - I won't gloat if/when you are demonstrated to be wrong,...


Mmmmm-K?

Sheepdog

11/10/10 11:53 AM

#38897 RE: conagra #38892

AS I said before, i do not agree with you in many areas. You obviously have a grasp of the issues and are not uninformed, perhaps you are "over-informed".

The basic issue you present is that CLYW will never be able to prove Daic kept CLYW from performing. If so, we can thank our previous BOD and officers, for voluntarily defaulting and you are right, Daic would prevail. I adamantly disagree with this conclusion that CLYW voluntarily defaulted when it had the ACACIA deal, opportunity to negotiate with T-Mobile, ability to acquire substantial investment and opportunity to sign licensing deals. I have seen enough PUBLIC info (mostly the court filings) for that. Think how much non-public info there is.

I also disagree with your assertion that T-Mobile can unilaterally keep stringing things out, if that is their intent. They have no power to do so and if CLYW wanted to stop these talks, they can do so unilaterally at any time per the order of the court. It takes all parties to continue, it only takes one party to stop it.

Cougar6

11/10/10 12:07 PM

#38904 RE: conagra #38892

Clearly you care, or you would not answer.

Diac is not asking for the patent, he is asking for money. He has asked the court to take possession and sell it.