Patriot Scientific der Highflyer 2006

Re: Larry, Toxic, and Al-Stayedin - I forgot to mention
in response to Larry, Toxic, and Al-Stayedin, by ads123
posted on May 01, 13 10:04PM (Log in to use the IP Check tool) [?]

Another thing I forgot to mention while talking to Dan Leckrone, was his enthusiasm, the meeting had ended, and as he was explaining the potential future for PTSC, he wanted to let everyone know that there was something cooking, unfortunately with the meeting over and the sound equipment, he could not access the microphone, so he explained to three of us.

But again, what I want to reinforce is in his belief that PTSC is going to go full steam ahead, he did not seem uncertain in that respect, he portrayed confidence in the near and long term future.

biz.yahoo.com/e/130502/ptsc8-k.html

PTSC hat vor wenigen Tagen einen neuen Abschluss mit Brodcom vermeldet,

und der Kurs sinkt Heute ca. 7 % !!!.  Was ist eigentlich los hier, man erfährt nicht

wieviel gezahlt wurde. Kann denn folglich  davon ausgegangen werden, dass sich die

Führungsriege seit Jahren selber mit diesen erheblichen Lizenzgeldern die Taschen

selber  vollstopfen  ? Die vier Büropangestellten von PTSC stellen doch keinen solchen

Kostenfaktor dar,  dass alle Lizenzzahlungen bisher davon aufgefressen wurden.

Danke für eine fundierte, materiella Antwort.

Wie sehe dies unsere Mitaktionäre in den USA, kann sich der Aktionär gegen diese

Geheimnistuerei nicht zu Wehr setzen ?

Das stinkt doch gewaltig zum Himmel.

agoracom.com/ir/patriot/forums/discussion/.../messages/1798724


The way I see it, we missed a deadline for a required filing and without the courts permission, we filed that experts statement late.

Infringers request the court strike our filing. Without that filing, they claim we have insufficient evidence to prove they have infringed our patents, as of that date. They claim according to the rules and regulation we have not met our obligations. There is not enough on file to continue and keep going into a trial and therefore they deserve a ruling of non infringement on their motion and briefs.

Therefore, they want a summary judgment on their motion, in their favor.

Obviously, we want the opposite based on that late filing (if the court waves the deadline) and further we want the court to consider the stuff we have filed with our opposition to the summary judgment.

The entire variable speed oscillator etc expert opinion and other evidence was in the late filing. It wasn't all the evidence but enough to keep the case going into the trial phase.

What will the judge do??? If we must appeal, what will the 6 commissioners do??? If we must appeal their ruling, what will the Federal Circuit court do????

Can we start over again in the ITC (with the same infringers) ??? Is their enough time to be effective???

schau dir die Kursentwicklung an und Du siehst, was die Aktie wert ist; nichts.
Die Zukunftsaussichten sieht man in der Kursentwicklung und so, wie es um das Unternehmen und die Aussichten steht.
Und ich denke auch, dass dort wenig mit "rechten Dingen" zugeht.
Naja...egal auch; wäre zu schön gewesen.

agoracom.com/ir/patriot/forums/discussion/...s/1799174#message

das ist doch echt ne Pommesbude. ROFL
Da macht das türkische Management des Düsseldorfer Stargrill`s in Bilk ne bessere Arbeit.
LOL

agoracom.com/ir/patriot/forums/discussion/...s/1799228#message

.....That declaration was expressly permitted by Commission Rule 210.18, and was executed by Dr. Oklobdzija on April 26, 2013—well before the May 1, 2013 “[e]xpert discovery cutoff and completion” date set in the procedural schedule. See Order No. 15; 19 C.F.R. § 210.18(b)

agoracom.com/ir/patriot/forums/discussion/...s/1799470#message

agoracom.com/ir/patriot/forums/discussion/...s/1799469#message

den LG case, noch nicht die aktuellen.

vielen Dank cc!

im Falle ITC 13 geht es schließlich nicht um die Frage ob die angeschriebenen das MMP verletzen, das dürfte längst geklärt sein, ach ja, es sind ja nur noch ITC 12.

Sierra hat eine Lizenz gekauft und hat sich den Papierkrieg erspart.

Für die restlichen geht es nun "nur" noch um das WIE! Wie hoch? Wie viel?

Gruß

nicht des mmp, nur 336.

insbesondere um die steuerung des ring oscillator.

erst wenn bewiesen ist, dass die itc 12 mit ihren produkten das 336 verletzen,
dann macht es sinn vor der itc einen lieferstop und verkaufsstop zu beantragen.

ja, das ist richtig,

was ich sagte ist, das die kleinste Firma in der Sache, Sierra, die Sache erkannt hat und geklärt hat.

Es liegt also nahe das die größeren durchaus zum gleichen Schluss kommen, nur eben vorerst weiter kämpfen.

Ich sehe mit der Sierra Lizenz die Richtung.

Ohne Zweifel, eine Aussage das das 336 verletzt wird ist ein Befreiungsschlag.

Gewinner aus.
Die Antwort zeigt der Kurs; nette Umsätze bei fast 19% ...leider ist die Richtung die "Falsche".....Aber der Kurs zeigt den Weg.

Oder auch rund 110000 $ oder auch 83000 EU oder einen gebrauchten BMW X3.
Also ich war das nicht,ich schwörs.

man kann auch immer wieder alles "schönreden" ;-)
Wenn die Aussichten positiver wären, würde man dies im Kurs sehen.
Aber lassen wir mal die rosarote Brille weiter auf ....

sagt mir schon vieles.....aber wir schauen einfach mal....
Einfach Karo 18 ... mehr nicht .... noch nicht mal ein Null ..... sehe ich da im Augenblick.....
und im Stock finde ich vermutlich Karo Dame und Pik 8 ....was eine Findung .....

biz.yahoo.com/e/130509/ptsc8-k_a.html

Item 7.01 Regulation FD Disclosure.  
As previously disclosed by the Company, a complaint was filed on behalf of the Company and other parties in the U.S. International Trade Commission ("ITC") on July 24, 2012 (ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-853, or the "853 Investigation") alleging infringement of the '336 patent against respondents Acer Inc., Amazon.com Inc., Barnes & Noble Inc., Garmin Ltd., HTC Corporation, Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd., Kyocera Corporation, LG Electronics, Nintendo Co. Ltd., Novatel Wireless Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Sierra Wireless Inc., and ZTE Corporation ("Respondents"). Sierra Wireless purchased a license to the MMP Portfolio and was terminated from the 853 Investigation in November 2012.

The Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") conducted a claim construction hearing (a "Markman hearing") on March 5, 2013, and issued Order No. 31: Construing the Terms of the Asserted Claims of the Patent at Issue on April 18, 2013. Respondents have also filed a motion for summary determination of non-infringement based in part on the ALJ's claim construction of the phrase "entire ring oscillator variable speed clock," as well as similar phrases that include the term "entire" in the claims of the '336 patent. If the ALJ grants Respondents' motion, he will likely issue an initial determination that Respondents do not infringe the '336 patent. Such a ruling would then be the subject of an internal appeal at the ITC. Although the Company has opposed Respondents' motion for summary determination and believes its infringement allegations are meritorious, the Company cannot provide any guidance regarding the likelihood of a favorable or an unfavorable decision with respect to the motion for summary determination. If the ALJ denies Respondents' motion for summary determination, the 853 Investigation will proceed to trial on June 3, 2013. A final determination is expected in the 853 Investigation by no later than January 6, 2014.

The information in this Current Report on Form 8-K is being furnished pursuant to Item 7.01 of Form 8-K and shall not be deemed to be "filed" for the purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that section, nor shall it be deemed to be incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act. This Current Report on Form 8-K will not be deemed an admission as to the materiality of any information contained herein.

heute will es in Deutschland aber jemand wissen.
Scheinen im Gegensatz zu dir doch noch welche an PTSC zu glauben.

from Agora:

Re: Mr. Otteson at Markman, info about infringers oscillator false difference
in response to Mr. Otteson at Markman, info about infringers oscillator false difference by 123Mark
posted on May 09, 13 08:33PM (Log in to use the IP Check tool) [?]
Impressive work by Otteson. (Caveat - I haven't read the Respondent's ITC Markman hearing testimony)..

I am genuinely heartened by Otteson's presentation and interplay with Judge Gildea while discussing the 336 MMP. Otteson goes point-by-point refuting the Respondnent's position and illustrating the deception, incongruity, and twisted logic of their position again and again.

Referencing prior Markman hearings, (Judge Ward) wherever possible, and illustrating in precise detail how the Respondent's ideas are abject fallacy and their attempts to subvert the originality and creativity associated with the MMP was masterful. He brought his "A" game. Good lawyering !!

Given Otteson's strong defense of the '336, delving into minute detail at times, leaving no stone unturned, pointing out the repeated deceptions the other side is attempting to present as fact, it is quite evident there are clear differences and interpretations between the two parties. This leads me to believe Judge Gildea will allow the investigation to continue and proceed to trial, especially over basis of fact issues, denying the MSJ, assuming outside political influence is held to a minimum...Virt

nassie, das können nur Selbstmörder sein die jetzt ptsc kaufen:)

nur meine Meinung
Gruß microby

Ich denke, du weisst schon, wie long ich bin, aber irgendwann ist man echt gefrusstet. Alles Gute.  Sendet via mobil

secfilings.nasdaq.com/...FA&RcvdDate=5%2F9%2F2013&pdf=