I promote accurate information and it is best to admit when you are wrong as I was. On an anonymous message board your credibility is everything. I am not very anonymous though as I have emailed, spoken by phone, and even met other yahoo / investorvillage writers. email@example.com. You even starts most of your posts directed at me with my first name.
I am seeing an active seller in Augme but an equally active buyer. Best to keep an eye on it but it could be for a number of reasons. May was a pretty tough month for most investors and they could be forced to liquidate other positions in order to cover their bad bets.
I am not reading anything into the action.
FYI, we should be getting the Pandora markman "soon".
Exactly correct, the Form D is merely a required filing to account for the actual issuance of the shares with respect to the Geos transaction. No bid deal, but it says a lot about you and your character that you would take the time to correct your comment. Some here would be far less considerate and consciencience as to the accuracy of their statements, thank you.
Imiami is right.
355k spent from cash reserves.
Issuing 1.8M shares of stock at $2.15 worth $4M.
There wasn't any actual cash raised. It was more of a compliance filing for cleanup.
Form D's can be used for private raises which was done on ETAK recently. I didn't see the acquisition check-box marked.
$4.000 million raised
($0.355 million) cash used for Geos patent portfolio
($0.200 million) cash used for VSST investment
$3.445 million remainder (to be used for more investments/acquisitions or general purposes?)
"Furthermore, there is already now ample evidence coming from the examiner to indicate the patent will likely emerge relatively unscathed, if not completely untouched."
Can you expound on this arn? What evidence are you referring to?
I agree with you completely David. Furthermore, there is already now ample evidence coming from the examiner to indicate the patent will likely emerge relatively unscathed, if not completely untouched. The process only strengthening that particular patent. Anyone who has spent time observing Augme's handing of the issue could only have a high degree of confidence, not only in the patent, but in competence of Augme's IP team to address such a review.
I've commented as have others on the nature of Yahoo's request for review. The prior art they provided is woefully inadequate and grasping at straws. As we've both acknowledged, Augme's response was extremely well done. It really bares little relevance to the case anyways since they only filed a review on one of the two patents asserted. The review was clearly done to try and establish a leverage point rather than have it play a material role in the cases outcome.
I have no concern over this issue whatsoever and remain confident the Yahoo case will settle prior to the Jan court date, not a doubt in my mind. I would continue to suggest anyone giving thought to scaling into a position, consider doing it now.
Some would be well served to remember all of this began with a single patent that has now involved into a portfolio of many. The company currently has 80 patents pending as we speak according to the other days presentation. All of this while they have also emerged as the leading mobile marketing company in the US while mobile is being termed the next great technology paradigm shift.