dbtunr; unless you're an attorney, your opinions here have little merit, just as my opinions also have little merit. There are many excellent patent attorneys, so this might hurt CLCT. Although it Maybe; maybe not. I think CLCT is at a nice price to buy, but I'll hold off for now and see where this suit goes.
I'm not an attorney so I would have no idea if this lawsuit has any merit. My sense is that it doesn't, but it would help if the board had a lawyer out there. bjudge; are you an attorney?
Much of what you post is very off base. The heavy short positions might or might not be from this potential patent news. You have no idea at all and more likely this patent news is laughable and not to be taken seriously. I can't be sure but do not see this news as a worry. More worrie-some is the threat of a possible overall market correction and the continuous insider selling.
What is known from anyone with any experience in trading stocks, is that stocks that rise 25% or more in a year and see only insider selling, are attractive short plays. Short players also might see a red flag in this company's decision to have next to zero pr news. The fact that people need to rely on dbtunr to post card and coin numbers is very pathetic. This company's dead to the world when it comes to promoting their stock, which definitely factors into the short positions. If a patent lawsuit is a factor than that would be bad also, but I doubt it will be. All this said, the dividend remains the same and is very attractive and CLCT's basic numbers look good, so I'd think this is a decent opportunity to add some shares. Possibly in an overall market correction, some fund managers might look for some more conservative high dividend paying stocks.
Why did the founder of PCGS testify for NGC? Because this suit was originally filed against NGC, the #1 competitor to PCGS. The case went to jury trial and Blake LOST. End of trial. A few months back PCGS sued Blake to recoup legal costs.
and now we learn their premise is based on a the flawed argument that PCGS and NGC have violated a patent that has attempted to patent "eye appeal" through the use of a "+" on the slab.
nothing. It is a bogus claim. Sounding much like and sounding EXACTLY like are two different things. Blake is a patent troll who has no case. This is laughable. You shorts are going to get steamrolled. CLCT may even DOUBLE if this is your thesis.
It looks like you didn't even read the patent?
The 8,661,889 patent claim 1 actually claims a system that sounds much like CLCT's "Secure" system, which is not as you know (or probably don't), a 'grading system', but a consumer protection system. And if you look at the other claims, like claim 4, you will see that the patent also claims the holders based on the system.
So what does that mean for customers who have purchased the secure holders?
This is the "+" and "eye appeal" patent. It is a total joke and going no where. David Hall even talked about his testimony on the PCGS forums.
Lawyer: so when did you start using "+"
Hall: as early as 1972
PCGS gives an "opinion" on a coin. This includes whether it is fake, artificially toned, altered, condition, and eye appeal. Different people look at different things and find different levels of "eye appeal". How can that be patented?
The case is Collectors Universe v. Blake, case number 8:14−cv−00333−AG−DFM, in central district of California. Judge Andrew Guilford is listed as the presiding federal judge. Apparently, Collectors sued Blake on March 4, 2014, asking that federal court for a declaratory judgment for non-infringement of Blake’s patent number 8,661,889. Blake countersued for patent infringement on July 3 against collectors, PCGS, Long Beach Expo and David Hall Rare Coins. It's publically available. Go look it up.
So where's a link to the new patent case. Why post about a lawsuit if you're not going to provide the news story? As for dbtunr; your non-stop cheer leading is getting old as is your childish reporting of the posts I put out that warn about the insider selling
Do you have a link with law suit? I doubt a law suit would hold up in regard to grading terminology
so please enlighten us with the docket number and relevant facts rather than trying to scare folks, like shorts do.
What is patented now? The words "shiny", "colorful", "good", "fine"??? You realize it all boils down to a company that issues an opinion. Anyone can have an opinion
What's pathetic is your understanding of the facts and the potential negative impact of an actual patent infringement case. I do NOT own any stock and I am NOT short the stock either.
The years old patent troll case you are referring to was NOT a patent case. It was basically a Lanham Act case where the guy accused CLCT of violating confidential information, not the use of a "+" sign. I've read the case, maybe you should.
This new case was filed a few weeks ago and IS a patent infringement case from someone that holds an actual patent that has a lot more to do with than just a "+".
I suggest you educate yourself on what's going on out there instead of blinding following a CEO that laughs off lawsuits. Maybe the shorts know more than you.
gigantic increase in short interest, up 178K shares in 15 days, 41% of volume, as of trading from July 1-15
Forget insider selling. All the action is from shorts and shorting. The shorts have controlled this stock for the last few months. 433K shares traded during this timeframe. 41% of the volume was shorting. The share price actually rose 41c
short interest is now 871K shares, 10%+ of all the outstanding shares. And they are doing this just before another dividend too. The dividend gets announced this week, probably Thursday
pcbutler; you ask a good question. I think if the dividend stays the same and revenues are in the 10% range AND the CEO gives a positive outlook for the rest of the year, than the stock should see a 5% or better move higher.
Management has been selling shares; not buying; so why would they put out positive PR news? Get it yet?