Patriot Scientific der Highflyer 2006
Nassie was schätzt Du denn dann so an Einnahmen? Ich kann da überhaut nicht schätzen, habe mich damit schon zu oft in die Nesseln gesetzt.
Ist eigentlich alles möglich, zwischen 20 und 100 Mio.
Abhängig wohl davon was NEC berappen musste.
Was macht das dann im nächsten Quratal, ein KGV von 2?
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION RUSSELL H. FISH, III and ROBERT §
ANDERSON, as Trustee of the Fish Family Trust,
Plaintiffs,§
v. Civil Action No. 3:06-CV-0815-K
consolidated with
Civil Action No. 3:06-CV-1203-K
PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, a
Delaware corporation, § ECF
Defendant.
JOINT MOTION TO AMEND SCHEDULE TO EXTEND DEADLINES
Plaintiffs Russell H. Fish, III, Robert Anderson, as trustee of the Fish Family Trust, and Defendant Patriot Scientific Corporation jointly move the Court to amend the current schedule in this case to extend all deadlines by ninety (90) days. After extensive mediation and negotiations, on February 14, 2007, the parties entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the current disputes in this action. As part of that settlement, Patriot Scientific has an obligation to make a payment to the Plaintiffs on or before May 1, 2007. As an additional component of the settlement, in the event Patriot Scientific fails to meet that payment obligation, Patriot Scientific has agreed that Plaintiffs may seek expedited relief in this action in the form of a stipulated judgment. The parties, therefore, request an extension of all deadlines in this action (including Plaintiffs’ expert report deadline) by 90 days to allow Patriot Scientific to fulfill its May 1st payment obligation. Under the requested extension, Plaintiffs will submit a status report to the Court by May 4, 2007 regarding the status of the case, which should, hopefully, be followed quickly by a joint dismissal by all parties. The parties submit that the requested extension is in the interest of justice. For the foregoing reasons, the parties respectfully submit that the requested extension is well-founded
and should be granted.
Respectfully submitted,
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
/s/ Jerry R. Selinger___________
Jerry R. Selinger
State Bar No. 18008250
Susan E. Powley
State Bar No. 00784785
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on February 20, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the clerk of court for the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, using the electronic case filing system of the court. The following attorneys of record have consented in writing to accept notice as service of this document by electronic means and are being served by a “Notice of Electronic Filing” sent by the electronic case filing (“ECF”) system.
Steven R. Baggett
THOMPSON & KNIGHT LLP
1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 3300
Dallas, Texas 75201-4693
Charles T. Hoge
Matthew P. Nugent
KIRBY NOONAN LANCE & HOGE LLP
600 West Broadway. Suite 1100
San Diego, California 92101-3387
Jerry R. Selinger ____
Optionen
| Boardmail an "Matzelbub" |
Wertpapier: Patriot Scientific |
Wenn ich so an mein Posting hier im Board nach dem Sony-Deal denke.Selten habe ich in meiner Einschätzung so daneben gelegen.
Aber seit Wochen kaufe ich stramm dazu(auch heute bereits wieder)weil ich überzeugt davon bin, daß wir bald stark steigen werden.
mfg BoMa
So lange wir alle also immer alle richtig handeln kein Problem.
Matze: Ja ich hab wirklich schon einen richtien Gefühlsstau - wird Zeit das man mich da erlöst. In dem Fall kann ich da selber für mich gar nichts tun!
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
Technology Properties Limited, Inc. and Patriot
Scientific Corporation,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Matsushita Electrical Industrial Co., Ltd.,
Panasonic Corporation of North America, JVC
Americas Corporation, NEC Corporation, NEC
Electronics America, Inc., NEC Corporation of
America, NEC Display Solutions of America,
Inc., NEC Unified Solutions, Inc., Toshiba
Corporation, Toshiba America, Inc., Toshiba
America Electronic Components, Inc., Toshiba
America Information Systems, Inc. and Toshiba
America Consumer Products, LLC,
Defendants.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
STIPULATION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, pursuant to a settlement agreement by and between Plaintiffs, Technology Properties Limited and Patriot Scientific Corporation, and Defendants, NEC Corporation, NEC Corporation of America, NEC Display Solutions of America, Inc. and NEC Unified Solutions, Inc., and pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that the above-captioned action against Defendants NEC Corporation, NEC Corporation of America, NEC Display Solutions of America, Inc. and NEC Unified Solutions, Inc., shall be and is hereby dismissed with prejudice, all related counterclaims filed by NEC Corporation, NEC Corporation of America, NEC Display Solutions of America, Inc. and NEC Unified Solutions, Inc. shall be and are dismissed without prejudice, and no costs shall be assessed to any party.
DATED: February 21, 2007 Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Iris Sockel Mitrakos
Iris Sockel Mitrakos
TOWNSEND and TOWNSEND and CREW LLP
Iris Sockel Mitrakos, CA State Bar No. 190162
ismitrakos@townsend.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served on February 21, 2007, with a copy of this document via the Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3). Any other counsel of record will be served by electronic mail, facsimile transmission and/or first class mail on this same date.
Iris Sockel Mitrakos
Damit ist das Kapitel NEC abgeschlossen. Wenn das nicht ein gutes Zeichen ist, verstehe ich die Welt nicht mehr.
http://www.agoracom.com/ir/patriot/message/529128
Posted by wolfpackvolt on February 21, 2007 at 8:22PM
2nd Pacer--ANSWER TO THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED, INC., et al.,
Plaintiff,
v.
FUJITSU LIMITED, et al.,
Defendants.
DEFENDANT NEC ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.’S ANSWER TO THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND NEC ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.’S AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM.
Defendant NEC Electronics America, Inc. (“NEC Electronics”) hereby responds to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement (doc. no. 191) and presents its Amended Counterclaim, as follows:
THE PARTIES
1. Upon information and belief, NEC Electronics admits the allegations in paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement (“Second Amended Complaint”).
2. Upon information and belief, NEC Electronics admits the allegations in paragraph 2 of the Second Amended Complaint.
3. NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 3 of the Second Amended Complaint and, accordingly, denies the allegations in this paragraph.
4. NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 4 of the Second Amended Complaint and, accordingly, denies the allegations in this paragraph.
5. NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 5 of the Second Amended Complaint and, accordingly, denies the allegations in this paragraph.
6. NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 6 of the Second Amended Complaint and, accordingly, denies the allegations in this paragraph. NEC Electronics answers further that Plaintiffs have filed a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice dismissing NEC Corporation with prejudice.
7. NEC Electronics admits the allegations in paragraph 7 of the Second Amended Complaint.
8. NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 8 of the Second Amended Complaint and, accordingly, denies the allegations in this paragraph. NEC Electronics answers further that Plaintiffs have filed a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice dismissing NEC Display Solutions of America, Inc. (“NEC Display”) with prejudice.
9.NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 9 of the Second Amended Complaint and, accordingly, denies the allegations in this paragraph. NEC Electronics answers further that Plaintiffs have filed a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice dismissing NEC Corporation of America (“NEC America”) with prejudice.
10. NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 10 of the Second Amended Complaint and, accordingly, denies the allegations in this paragraph. NEC Electronics answers further that Plaintiffs have filed a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice dismissing NEC Unified Solutions, Inc. (“NEC Unified”) with prejudice.
11. NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 11 of the Second Amended Complaint and, accordingly, denies the allegations in this paragraph.
12. NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 12 of the Second Amended Complaint and, accordingly, denies the allegations in this paragraph.
13. NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 13 of the Second Amended Complaint and, accordingly, denies the allegations in this paragraph.
14. NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 14 of the Second Amended Complaint and, accordingly, denies the allegations in this paragraph.
15. NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 15 of the Second Amended Complaint and, accordingly, denies the allegations in this paragraph.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
16. NEC Electronics admits the allegations in paragraph 16 of the Second Amended Complaint because Plaintiffs have alleged a cause of action under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. 1, et seq. NEC Electronics denies the remaining allegations of this paragraph of the Second Amended Complaint.
17. NEC Electronics admits that this Court has personal jurisdiction over NEC Electronics by virtue of NEC Electronics conducting business in this district, and that, therefore, venue in this district is proper over it. NEC Electronics denies each and every remaining allegation in paragraph 17 of the Second Amended Complaint directed to it. NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 17 of the Second Amended Complaint with respect to each defendant other than NEC Electronics and, accordingly, denies such allegations in paragraph 17 of the Second Amended Complaint.
THE PATENTS
18. NEC Electronics admits that a copy of U.S. Patent No. 6,598,148 (“the ‘148 patent”) is attached to the Second Amended Complaint as Exhibit A, that it appears on its face to
have issued on July 22, 2003, and that it is entitled “High Performance Microprocessor Having Variable Speed System Clock.” NEC Electronics denies each and every remaining allegation in paragraph 18 of the Second Amended Complaint.
19. NEC Electronics admits that a copy of U.S. Patent No. 5,809,336 (“the ‘336 patent”) is attached to the Second Amended Complaint as Exhibit B, that it appears on its face to have issued on September 15, 1998, and that it is entitled “High Performance Microprocessor Having Variable Speed System Clock.” NEC Electronics denies each and every remaining allegation in paragraph 19 of the Second Amended Complaint.
20. NEC Electronics admits that a copy of U.S. Patent No. 5,784,584 (“the ‘584 patent”) is attached to the Second Amended Complaint as Exhibit C, that it appears on its face to have issued on July 21, 1998, and that it is entitled “High Performance Microprocessor Using Instructions That Operate Within Instruction Groups.” NEC Electronics denies each and every remaining allegation in paragraph 20 of the Second Amended Complaint.
21. NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 21 of the Second Amended Complaint and, accordingly, denies the allegations in this paragraph.
22. NEC Electronics admits that it believes that Patriot is a proper and necessary party plaintiff in this action and that defendants did indicate that they might seek to dismiss this action for failure to join Patriot if Patriot was not joined as a plaintiff. NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 22 of the Second Amended Complaint and, accordingly, denies such allegations in this paragraph.
23. Assuming that the reference to “Moore” is to Mr. Charles Moore, NEC Electronics admits that it has not asserted that Mr. Moore need be a plaintiff in this action. NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 23 of the Second Amended Complaint and, accordingly, denies such allegations in this paragraph.
INFRINGEMENT BY MATSUSHITA DEFENDANTS
24.NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraphs 24-32 of the Second Amended Complaint and, accordingly, denies the allegations in those paragraphs.
INFRINGEMENT BY NEC DEFENDANTS
33. NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 33 of the Second Amended Complaint and, accordingly, denies the allegations in this paragraph. NEC Electronics answers further that Plaintiffs have filed a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice dismissing NEC Corporation with prejudice.
34. NEC Electronics denies the allegations in paragraph 34 of the Second Amended Complaint.
35. NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 35 of the Second Amended Complaint and, accordingly, denies the allegations in this paragraph. NEC Electronics answers further that Plaintiffs have filed a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice dismissing NEC America with prejudice.
36. NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 36 of the Second Amended Complaint and, accordingly, denies the allegations in this paragraph. NEC Electronics answers further that Plaintiffs have filed a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice dismissing NEC Display with prejudice.
37. NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 37 of the Second Amended Complaint and, accordingly, denies the allegations in this paragraph. NEC Electronics answers further that Plaintiffs have filed a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice dismissing NEC Unified with prejudice.
38. NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 38 of the Second Amended Complaint and, accordingly, denies the allegations in this paragraph. NEC Electronics answers further that Plaintiffs have filed a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice dismissing NEC Corporation with prejudice.
39. NEC Electronics denies the allegations in paragraph 39 of the Second Amended Complaint.
40. NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 40 of the Second Amended Complaint and, accordingly, denies the allegations in this paragraph. NEC Electronics answers further that Plaintiffs have filed a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice dismissing NEC America with prejudice.
41. NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 41 of the Second Amended Complaint and, accordingly, denies the allegations in this paragraph. NEC Electronics answers further that Plaintiffs have filed a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice dismissing NEC Display with prejudice.
42. NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 42 of the Second Amended Complaint and, accordingly, denies the allegations in this paragraph. NEC Electronics answers further that Plaintiffs have filed a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice dismissing NEC Unified with prejudice.
43. NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 43 of the Second Amended Complaint and, accordingly, denies the allegations in this paragraph. NEC Electronics answers further that Plaintiffs have filed a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice dismissing NEC Corporation with prejudice.
44. NEC Electronics denies the allegations in paragraph 44 of the Second Amended Complaint.
45. NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 45 of the Second Amended Complaint and, accordingly, denies the allegations in this paragraph. NEC Electronics answers further that Plaintiffs have filed a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice dismissing NEC America with prejudice.
46. NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 46 of the Second Amended Complaint and, accordingly, denies the allegations in this paragraph. NEC Electronics answers further that Plaintiffs have filed a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice dismissing NEC Display with prejudice.
47. NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 47 of the Second Amended Complaint and, accordingly, denies the allegations in this paragraph. NEC Electronics answers further that Plaintiffs have filed a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice dismissing NEC Unified with prejudice.
INFRINGEMENT BY TOSHIBA DEFENDANTS
48.NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraphs 48 - 62 of the Second Amended Complaint and, accordingly, denies the allegations in those paragraphs.
63. All allegations not specifically admitted herein are denied.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES NON-INFRINGEMENT
64. NEC Electronics does not directly infringe, contributorily infringe, or induce infringement of, and at all relevant times to this action, has not directly infringed, contributorily infringed, or induced infringement of any valid and enforceable claim of the ‘148, ‘336, and/or ‘584 patents.
INVALIDITY
65. The claims of the ‘148, ‘336 and/or ‘584 patents are invalid for failure to comply with one or more of the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and/or 112. 9
UNENFORCEABILITY
66. Plaintiffs’ claims for infringement of the ‘148, ‘336 and ‘584 patents (“the Asserted Patents”) are barred because those patents are unenforceable as a result of inequitable conduct.
67. Two individuals, Mr. Charles Moore and Mr. Russell Fish, are named as inventors on the face of the Asserted Patents.
68. In late 1988, Mr. Moore had previous experience designing Forth-based microprocessors while Mr. Fish had experience in sales and marketing of microprocessors.
69. During 1989, Mr. Moore utilized the Semiconductor Design Center of Japanese semiconductor manufacturer, Oki, in Sunnyvale, California, to carry out his microprocessor design activities. Mr. Fish did not have access to the Oki Design Center.
70. During the time before the filing of U.S. Patent Application No. 07/389,334 (the “Application”), divisions of which issued as the Asserted Patents, Mr. Moore worked on designing the microprocessor discussed in the Application. Mr. Fish, however, worked on marketing this microprocessor. Mr. Fish was not concerned about the problems addressed by the microprocessor design disclosed in the Application.
71. Mr. Moore did all the design work on the microprocessor disclosed in the Application by himself.
72. None of the persons substantially involved in the prosecution of the Application, including Mr. Moore and Mr. Fish, disclosed to the United States Patent & Trademark Office (“Patent Office”) that Mr. Moore had performed all of the design work on the disclosed microprocessor himself.
73. Mr. Moore and Mr. Fish submitted declarations signed under oath stating that Mr. Fish was an inventor of the subject matter claimed in the Application.
74. Mr. Fish did none of the design work on the disclosed microprocessor. Mr. Fish was only responsible for marketing and potential sales of the microprocessor.
75. Mr. Fish was not an inventor of the subject matter claimed in the Application.
76. The misstatements made by both Mr. Moore and Mr. Fish that Mr. Fish was an inventor were material.
77. Mr. Moore was motivated to state that Mr. Fish was an inventor because he wanted to encourage Mr. Fish to make every effort to market the microprocessor that Mr. Moore had designed.
78. Mr. Fish was motivated to claim inventorship both to receive a share of any patent rights that might result from the Application and for the recognition of being an inventor.
79. At least Mr. Moore was aware that Mr. Fish was not an inventor and intended to deceive the Patent Office when he declared under penalty of perjury that Mr. Fish was an inventor.
LACHES
80. On information and belief, all or some of Plaintiffs’ claims for relief are barred by the doctrine of laches.
COUNTERCLAIM
Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff NEC Electronics America, Inc. alleges its Counterclaim as follows:
1. Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff NEC Electronics America, Inc. (“NEC Electronics”) is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California and maintains a principal place of business in Santa Clara, California.
2. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant Technology Properties Limited, Inc. (“TPL”) is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California and maintains a principal place of business in San Jose, California.
3. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant Patriot Scientific Corporation (“Patriot”) is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware and maintains a principal place of business in San Diego, California.
4. NEC Electronics asserts a Counterclaim for declaratory relief under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35, United States Code, in particular, Sections 271 and 285. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Counterclaim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), 2201 and 2202.
5. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
6. In their Second Amended Complaint, TPL and Patriot (“Plaintiffs”) allege that they (along with Charles Moore) are the owners of the right, title and interest to the ‘148, ‘336 and ‘584 patents and that TPL has the exclusive right to enforce and license these patents. Plaintiffs further allege that NEC Electronics has infringed the ‘148, ‘336 and ‘584 patents.
7. An actual controversy exists between Plaintiffs and NEC Electronics by virtue of the allegations in Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint in this action.
8. The ‘148, ‘336, and/or ‘584 patents are invalid for failure to comply with one or more of the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and/or 112.
9. NEC Electronics has not directly infringed, contributorily infringed, or induced infringement of any valid and enforceable claim of the ‘148, ‘336 and/or ‘584 patents.
10. The ‘148, ‘336, and/or ‘584 patents are unenforceable for the reasons stated in paragraphs 66 – 79 of NEC Electronics’ Answer to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, which paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth fully herein.
11. This is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285, entitling NEC Electronics to an award of its attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs in this action.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff NEC Electronics prays for:
A. A judgment dismissing the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice.
B. A judgment providing that Plaintiffs shall not be awarded any relief on their Second Amended Complaint, including without limitation, any award of damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and/or injunctive relief.
C. A judgment declaring each claim of the ‘148, ‘336 and ‘584 patents invalid.
D. A judgment declaring each of the ‘148, ‘336 and ‘584 patents unenforceable.
E. A judgment declaring that NEC Electronics has not directly infringed, contributorily infringed, or induced infringement of any valid and enforceable claim of the ‘148, ‘336 and ‘584 patents.
F. A judgment deeming this to be an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and awarding NEC Electronics its attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs in this action.
G. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Dated: February 21, 2007
Respectfully submitted,
Lisa S. Mankofsky
Guy N. Harrison, State Bar No. 00000077
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on February 21, 2007, all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of the foregoing instrument via the Court’s CM/ECF filing system.
Lisa S. Mankofsky
siehe: http://www.agoracom.com/ir/patriot/message/529140
bzw. Antwort von Wolfpackvoltaire in:
http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=PTSC&read=201969
von Agoracom in ein doc. übernommen (Quellen dort), mühsam zu lesen, aber die m. E. bisher beste Erklärung für den bisherigen Kursverlauf:
i find it very interesting
Posted by ttccrr7309 on February 20, 2007 at 10:24PM
that people want to speculate what is causing the past sp decline and stagnation at .60, let's look at ptsc for what it currently is, a company that pumped sp to 2+ bucks with 2 divys, a very good eps for an otc, and a promise of big things to come, this calculated run up was done for one reason and one reason only, to allow s&l to convert warrants and sell shares, ptsc can not have in the money warrants with a repriced strike price. it does not meet gaap requirements and you must meet gaap requirements to be considered legitimate, you must remember the worse type of toxic funding was put in place by pohl's predecessor. the current sp has nothing to do with supply and demand, the sp sits in this range as part of the distribution/accumulation taking place and until that is over sp will not move outside the range that the contract states with the mm's. every time a run up starts it is immediately stopped. this was all planned a yr ago to play out this way. i will post 2 additional posts that i wrote in the past to give additional info.
this post is in repsonse to an r/b poster but the point a straight forward,
Posted by ttccrr7309 on February 20, 2007 at 10:34PM
put things in to perspective, it took pohl, without the help of any company other than hawk to drive price north of 2 bucks, do you think that was just luck on pohl's part or a plan in action, pohl gave more hints than most ceo's would give, especially considering otc status that sp would be volatile, plus swartz also said at the share holders meeting that sp would be very volatile, why, he knew that at a certain profit point lincoln and himself would or did start dumping shares and converting warrants, and i highly doubt pohl did not know this was going to happen, i know a lot of you guys are kicking yourselves in the azz for not selling at near the highs but pohl gave you the opportunity, i thank boots for giving the heads up to dig deeper in to swartz, longs have to deal with it, thank your lucky stars that more than likely sp will return to those 52 week highs at minimum, because with most otc's you don't get a second chance, in addition, for those that bought in high you have learned a valuable lessen if you are not a trader, never chase sp, the great news is that those that have hung in there will probably reap rewards which is very unusual for an otc, most are pump it up, insiders sell all their shares, sp dumps and then the p&d insiders, wait a few months, call for a r/s and change company name to start the scam all over again, with ptsc there is a very great chance that your mistake did not cause you to lose your investment if you hang in there, in addition one of the reasons that s&l had to convert their warrants now is because ptsc would never be considered legit to move to the next level due to not meeting gaap requirements, gaap does not allow for in the money warrants that have been repriced, and you may think, why would s&l sell if they know the price is going higher in the long run, it's business, it was part of the negotiation with pohl and that's why pohl gave up 35mil more warrants to eliminate the repricing clause and say to s&l, you need to sell all the warrants by such and such a date, do you think s&l are good guys and should have said, you now what mr. pohl, that extra 30 mil or so that we can make by converting warrants, forget about it, we don't need the money, s&l were in the cat bird seat, ptsc is lucky that is was not worse, most toxic funders bury companies back to or below the original sp so they could start the scam all over and put in place more toxic funding, and that is why the otc is a land mine, 95% of the time, the only objective of otc companies is to put money in the insiders pockets, of course, ptsc is the exception to the rule and don't blame pohl for current sp, it was his prededessor who put the chitty finance package together in the first place, i know a lot of you will learn from your ptsc experiences and when looking at 10k and q's i bet one of the first things you look for is in the money warants and repricing clauses. this is all my opinion and took me about 2 minutes to write, so i hope it's clear to most, sorry but to busy to spend more time on it. one last thing since i'm on the subject, look up wtvi, classic p&d, i have been playing it for years, look at there history and last run up.
this is the email i sent out a couple of months ago to those that requested it,
below are the os and warrant totals and my thoughts on the whole scenario, this information should not be disseminated to others in any way, also, all of this info is only my opinion.
year os warrants
02 66m 24m
03 93m 59m
04 140m 121m
05 280m 99m
06* 316m 93m
Q1 07 369m 53m
Q2 07** 382m 22m
* in 06, ptsc cut a deal with s&l to eliminate the repricing clause (pipe) set up in 04 and before, it cost ptsc 35m more warrants, s&l converted 35+m warrants and sold 35+m in stock, that's why you see the warrants stay basically the same between 05 and 06 and os go up by 35m.
** in Q2 07, ptsc bought back shares and also purchased the fish shares on the open market, that relieved some of the selling pressure caused by warrant conversion and stock selling and the os went up less then the total # of shares sold by s&l.
*** keep in mind there were other warrant holders and my take is they worked in lock stop with s&l.
**** options are in play as well, but the data would suggest minimal quantities/impact compared to warrants.
the aforementioned was all planned out as part of the run up to 2 bucks, ptsc and s&l needed that sp to start the warrant conversion and thus the dilutive impact to walk the sp down to where it is now. what is also happening is there is an accumulation play in action, my guess, it's tpl buying up the shares, if there was not this type of accumulation going on, sp would have been in free fall instead of the methodical walk down we are seeing.
there is good news if you are long:
1. the warrants are almost all converted, no additional warrants added in the last 2 Q's;
2. some entity other than ptsc has been accumulating for months, my guess tpl;
3. there are 22m warrants left, mostly owned by s&l.
one of 3 scenarios are likely with the remaining warrants;
a. they will continue to be converted and s&l shares will continue to be sold, adding continued selling pressure even though there is an accumulation play in action, what usually happens is that the seller and the accumulator have a predetermined average sp for the transaction, i'm sure most of you saw the 300k trade at the ask right before the close on friday, not a retail trade and the mm wanted you to see the trade quantity, why, they have been hiding trade sizes since july;
b. the accumulator is finished and s&l wants a higher sp for the remaining conversions, so one last run up is generated in combination with a pr blitz leading in to the markman, warrants will be sold on the way up and then another walk down due to a lack of understanding of the markman ruling time line, most will think the ruling will come quickly, in other states the judge usually takes months to write his/her opinion on claim construction scope, i don't know about texas but it will still take a time frame longer than most think, doubts will start creeping in to weak hands, bashers will say the longer it takes the more likely tpl/ptsc is in trouble with the markman, weak hands will fold, news will dry up over the summer, if there are any remaining warrants to be sold they will be sold on the last walk down, this is where it really gets interesting, time frames are tight, since trial date is set and most likely will not change considerably if at all.
c. hold warrants for after trial.
my guess, (a) is most likely to play out, once warrants are gone, then s&l and/or tpl go in to accumulation mode and buy even more at the bottom with a huge long position leading in to the trial, if s&l is over the 9.99% os, they will be bought through another entity that they control, same with tpl, or they will say, we have enough shares, this is where the longs start to benefit if all goes well with the markman, j3arm settlement or win at trial. if that happens there will be no undue selling pressure caused by anything other than supply and demand and sp should rocket, unless some entity takes a huge short position which i would doubt under the circumstances, this is not a short play candidate, if the markman does not turn out well, all bets off on how low sp will go, a loss at trial and ptsc is history.
let me go one step further and show you approximately how much money s&l has made on an investment in ptsc of less than a million bucks
i will only go back as far as the beginning of 05, but mark my words, with a repricing model in place and the sp fluctuating between .05 and .18, they made millions even before the big run up in spring of 06;
1. s&l sold 35 million shares in 05 at an avg sp of .12, = 4.2m, keep in mind these warrants were repriced at .015 cents and what does pohl do, the beginning of 06, he gives s&l 35m warrants as a payoff to remove the repricing clause (pipe). i don't blame pohl, he had nothing to do with the chitty finance deal that his corrupt predecessors set up. also, don't forget that pohl was put in to his position as ceo by swartz.
2. beginning of 06 the divys are given out to the tune of 4.8m to s&l.
3. between fiscal 06 and end of Q2, warrants went from 93m to 22m, that's 71m that flooded the market from the time of the run up to the slow methodical walk down to where we are now, at least 40m warrants were s&l's and lets make it easy and say the avg. selling sp was 1 buck, that's another 40m in s&l's pockets, this is assuming that they have kept their core share holding at 9.99% or 80m or so;
how much has s&l made to date:
during 05 and now, s&l pocketed at least 49m in cash and still hold 80m shares and 22m warrants all for a measly loan of less than 1m and with a repricing clause in place, it would have been hard for them to lose that 1m as well, so s&l made good money with out taking any risk, so even if the markman goes poorly and we lose at trial, s&l still walks away with 50+x their initial investment, plus the ability to sell the remaining 80m shares on the way down, but i don't think they will have to sell those shares, those are being held for the real money, a ptsc win, and that's when the longs prosper, and i believe that s&l believes that as well, because the payoff then could be in the 100s of millions for s&l with that many shares, and that is why deep pockets never lose, and could win huge with no risk, the original deal was set up as a pipe, for s&l to make a few million like all the pipes they set up, but it turned out different when the patents showed real value, then the game changed, with s&l being in the right place at the right time.
let's take a quick look at some recent events, fish lawsuit settled is huge, fish taking 5.5m in stock is huge, i guarantee that taking stock in place of cash was against the advice of their attorneys. ptsc buying the stock on the open market is very telling, that is unheard of for an otc, warrants almost all converted, again, it cleans the books, no reputable company has this type of warrant set up on their books. major accumulation going on, since july my guess 75m shares, since tracking in october 20+m. pohl said that this stock would be volatile, he knew during the run and told everyone in not so many words that sp would be volatile, ie, that the dilutive affect would drive down the price and he also knew that there would be periods of spikes caused by pr's. the sony signing and subsequent chip license with alliacense even though originally ticked my off, in hindsight i think was a brilliant move, it eliminates the defendant strategy that tpl is a patent troll.
in closing, most of you know i'm a trader who has accumulated 225k free shares that i am keeping as a core, only the second time in my trading career that i have ever kept a core, aapl being the other, why a core with ptsc, after i thought through what s&l was doing i developed a strategy to do the same thing, even though it had to be in a slightly different way, take profits, accumulate shares, hold long free shares, the difference is that s&l basically made their money with zero risk. and as all retail, we have to take risks the big boys don't, good luck to you and i hope we all prosper. i could go on with some other theories about tpl, but let's leave that for another time, 06 was the year for the trader with all the volatility we saw, if all goes well, 07 is the year for the longs.
tcr7309
Agoracom, Posted by ttccrr7309 on February 20, 2007 at 10:47PM
http://www.agoracom.com/ir/patriot/message/528953
shareholderletter von Pohl und ich bin zufrieden.
Patriot Scientific Corporation Announces Cash Dividend and Future Semi-Annual Dividend Policy
PR Newswire "US Press Releases "
CARLSBAD, Calif., Feb. 22 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Patriot Scientific Corporation (OTC Bulletin Board: PTSC) today announced that it will issue a cash dividend of $0.02 per share of common stock for shareholders and qualified warrant holders of record as of March 6, 2007. The dividend is payable April 9, 2007.
This dramatic action follows closely on the heels of the company\'s recent announcements that two more global manufacturers, NEC Corporation and Funai Electric, have purchased licenses for the jointly owned Moore Microprocessor Patent(TM) (MMP) Portfolio. Patriot Scientific and The TPL Group are co-owners of the MMP Portfolio, which Alliacense, a TPL Group enterprise, exclusively manages.
"We want our shareholders to participate in our share of the revenues generated by our jointly owned MMP Patent Portfolio," said David Pohl, chairman and CEO of Patriot Scientific Corporation. "In furtherance of this philosophy, our board of directors has now adopted a policy of paying a dividend every six months, subject each time to a determination by the board that payment of a dividend would then be reasonable and prudent in light of the financial condition of the company, other possible applications of the company\'s available resources, and relevant business considerations," Pohl stated.
Patriot Scientific invested millions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of man-hours over 12 years or more developing and bringing to market products based upon the company\'s intellectual property, including IP contained in the MMP Portfolio. "Patriot\'s board of directors decided in June 2005 to shift our primary business model from manufacturing and marketing products to a model currently focused on licensing our joint venture patent portfolio," said Pohl. "This dividend payment, which is rare in the arena of microcap companies, is another important step evidencing the fact that the board and management firmly believe in the company\'s future potential."
He noted that HP, Casio, Fujitsu, Sony, Nikon, Seiko Epson, Pentax, Olympus, Kenwood, Agilent, Lexmark, Schneider Electric, NEC Corporation and Funai Electric have purchased MMP Portfolio licenses in the past 13 months. Intel and AMD are also licensees. The MMP portfolio generated over $108 million in total license fees for the joint venture as a result of licenses signed in 2006. After allocation for expenses, the distributive share received by Patriot Scientific from the total license fees was over $48 million.
"We have already embarked upon our plan for the future of Patriot Scientific by seeking and evaluating opportunities to add to and diversify our revenue stream by acquiring other companies and technologies, entering into joint ventures, developing and marketing new proprietary products or technologies, or a combination of any of those alternatives," Pohl continued, "always pointed toward the goal of increasing the financial position and strength of the company and providing value to our shareholders."
A letter issued by Pohl as CEO of Patriot Scientific is being posted Friday on the company\'s web site at www.ptsc.com. The letter summarizes significant developments of 2006 and provides an update on recent events of interest to shareholders. The company also announced plans to hold an annual shareholders meeting April 27, 2007, in Carlsbad, California. Details will be announced soon and proxy materials will be mailed to shareholders.
About Patriot Scientific
Patriot Scientific is a leading intellectual property licensing company that develops, markets and enables innovative technologies to address the demands in fast-growing markets such as wireless devices, smart cards, home appliances and gateways, set-top boxes, entertainment technology, automotive telematics, biomedical devices and industrial controllers. Headquartered in Carlsbad, Calif., information about the company can be found at http://www.ptsc.com.
Copies of Patriot Scientific press releases, current price quotes, stock charts and other valuable information for investors may also be found at http://www.hawkassociates.com and http://www.americanmicrocaps.com. An investment profile on Patriot Scientific may be found at http://www.hawkassociates.com/ptscprofile.aspx.
About the Patent Portfolio
The patent portfolio, marketed as the Moore Microprocessor Patent(TM) Portfolio, is jointly owned by the publicly held Patriot Scientific Corporation and the privately held TPL Group. The portfolio encompasses seven U.S. patents as well as their European and Japanese counterparts fundamental to the design of modern microprocessors, microcontrollers, Digital Signal Processors (DSPs), embedded processors and System-on-Chip (SoC) implementations.
About Alliacense
Alliacense is a TPL Group Enterprise executing best-in-class design and implementation of Intellectual Property (IP) licensing programs. As a cadre of IP licensing strategists, technology experts, and experienced business development /management executives, Alliacense focuses on expanding the awareness and value of TPL\'s IP portfolios. Founded in 1988, The TPL Group has emerged as a global coalition of high technology enterprises involved in the development, management and commercialization of IP assets as well as the design, manufacture and sales of proprietary products based on these same IP assets. For more information, visit www.alliacense.com.
Safe Harbor Statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995: Statements in this news release looking forward in time involve risks and uncertainties, including the risks associated with the effect of changing economic conditions, trends in the products markets, variations in the company\'s cash flow, market acceptance risks, patent litigation, technical development risks, seasonality and other risk factors detailed in the company\'s Securities and Exchange Commission filings.
Moore Microprocessor Patent (MMP) and Alliacense are trademarks of Technology Properties Limited (TPL). PTSC and Ignite are trademarks of Patriot Scientific Corporation. All other trademarks belong to their respective owners.
CONTACTS:
Patriot Investor Relations:
Hawk Associates, Frank Hawkins or Ken AuYeung
(305) 451-1888 info@hawkassociates.com
Patriot Media Relations:
The Hoffman Agency, John Radewagen
(408) 975-3005 jradewagen@hoffman.com
SOURCE Patriot Scientific Corporation
Optionen
| Boardmail an "joker67" |
Wertpapier: Patriot Scientific |
Optionen
| Boardmail an "ostseebrise." |
Wertpapier: Patriot Scientific |
greetz joker
Optionen
| Boardmail an "joker67" |
Wertpapier: Patriot Scientific |
Optionen
| Boardmail an "Matzelbub" |
Wertpapier: Patriot Scientific |
Angehängte Grafik:
popcorn.gif
popcorn.gif
Freut euch, so langsam geht es wieder in die richtige Richtung.
greetz joker
Optionen
| Boardmail an "joker67" |
Wertpapier: Patriot Scientific |
CARLSBAD, Calif., Feb. 22 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Patriot Scientific
Corporation (OTC Bulletin Board: PTSC) today announced that it will issue a
cash dividend of $0.02 per share of common stock for shareholders and
qualified warrant holders of record as of March 6, 2007. The dividend is
payable April 9, 2007.
This dramatic action follows closely on the heels of the company's recent
announcements that two more global manufacturers, NEC Corporation and Funai
Electric, have purchased licenses for the jointly owned Moore Microprocessor
Patent(TM) (MMP) Portfolio. Patriot Scientific and The TPL Group are co-owners
of the MMP Portfolio, which Alliacense, a TPL Group enterprise, exclusively
manages.
"We want our shareholders to participate in our share of the revenues
generated by our jointly owned MMP Patent Portfolio," said David Pohl,
chairman and CEO of Patriot Scientific Corporation. "In furtherance of this
philosophy, our board of directors has now adopted a policy of paying a
dividend every six months, subject each time to a determination by the board
that payment of a dividend would then be reasonable and prudent in light of
the financial condition of the company, other possible applications of the
company's available resources, and relevant business considerations," Pohl
stated.
Patriot Scientific invested millions of dollars and hundreds of thousands
of man-hours over 12 years or more developing and bringing to market products
based upon the company's intellectual property, including IP contained in the
MMP Portfolio. "Patriot's board of directors decided in June 2005 to shift
our primary business model from manufacturing and marketing products to a
model currently focused on licensing our joint venture patent portfolio," said
Pohl. "This dividend payment, which is rare in the arena of microcap
companies, isanother important step evidencing the fact that the board and
management firmly believe in the company's future potential."
He noted that HP, Casio, Fujitsu, Sony, Nikon, Seiko Epson, Pentax,
Olympus, Kenwood, Agilent, Lexmark, Schneider Electric, NEC Corporation and
Funai Electric have purchased MMP Portfolio licenses in the past 13 months.
Intel and AMD are also licensees. The MMP portfolio generated over $108
million in total license fees for the joint venture as a result of licenses
signed in 2006. After allocation for expenses, the distributive share received
by Patriot Scientific from the total license fees was over $48 million.
"We have already embarked upon our plan for the future of Patriot
Scientific by seeking and evaluating opportunities to add to and diversify our
revenue stream by acquiring other companies and technologies, entering into
joint ventures, developing and marketing new proprietary products or
technologies, or a combination of any of those alternatives," Pohl continued,
"always pointed toward the goal of increasing the financial position and
strength of the company and providing value to our shareholders."
A letter issued by Pohl as CEO of Patriot Scientific is being posted
Friday on the company's web site at www.ptsc.com. The letter summarizes
significant developments of 2006 and provides an update on recent events of
interest to shareholders. The company also announced plans to hold an annual
shareholders meeting April 27, 2007, in Carlsbad, California. Details will be
announced soon and proxy materials will be mailed to shareholders.
entwickeln und die Shorties beissen sich in den Arsch.
Ist fast so schön wie vor einem Jahr. Eine News folgte der nächsten und der Kurs kannte kein Halten mehr.
Optionen
| Boardmail an "joker67" |
Wertpapier: Patriot Scientific |