should be approved in plenty of time to be a part of the new, tough FDA requirements.
Do you think big tobacco can stall for 20 more years? I don't think so.
"NO! Me and Snake know the most. They should have hired me."
What? I boast? And, ummm, that should be "Snake and I ...."
Be careful here. If you are not into patent litigation, and do not understand the nitty-gritty of how to demonstrate infringement, then I would not be so boastful. From what I've been reading on this board, both snake (and I) have the deepest understanding of this subject matter.
Apparently you, and perhaps both of you, do a lot more writing than reading. Reading is good ... try it ... more.
I have "been into" THIS patent litigation since it was filed on March 20, 2001. At that time I had been researching, and investing in, and writing about this company for 3 years ... since 1998. I know as much as anyone about how infringement must be demonstrated in THIS case.
If you are of the mind that the CAFC ruling will immediately lead to money in Star's pockets from upcoming licenses to be negotiated, then a) you and lazyland are on the same page, and b) I think you're dead wrong.
Thank you so much for making up a point of view for me, categorizing it, and then criticizing it. That saves me so much time having to make up my own mind. I presume that you have nothing better to do.
So there you have it, folks ... why we call this "the clown board" : )
Perhaps you didn't bother to read my reply to your previous posts, as for example regarding,
"The value here is not in infringement lawsuits, but, in license revenues."
-You don't get license revenues without lawsuits, especially when you are a small company.
Had you done so you would have seen that you are dead wrong, and that the contracts and royalty agreements between Star and B&W BEFORE the patents issued is a prime example.
Not only can a small company get such without going to court, you can get them before the patents even issue. You were dead wrong.
How did I know? I've been researching and writing about this matter since before those contracts were written ... in 1999.
Reading is good ... try it some time.
Thanks a lot for your "pro bono" effort. I guess we got what we paid for.
When I have time I will merely update my previous writeups about what CAFC defined as infringement, combined with what else I have learned over all those years, merely for the information of those interested.
Meanwhile you and your friend chipper can continue to flit about like bats and wow the crowd with your self-proclaimed prowess. It just helps confirm our name for this board ... "the clown board".
Much of what you have said is correct, but you're not as good as you think you are. Go see my reply above on the matters you goofed on, if you have any doubts.
"Name calling"? The only name I see in my post is "messenger". That is the name you gave yourself in the post to which I replied.
"I've seen companies or service areas acquired/traded after a game changer like this."
Good observation. In this case, though, I would think that Star might end up spinning off its tobacco patents or monetize them somehow. Separate Star into 2 companies, one focused on health care with Anatabloc, and one focused on tobacco curing royalties.
In this scenario, yes, I could see an acquisition being made for that part of the company. But then it comes down to estimating the present value of the tobacco curing patents, and determining how easy it would be to negotiate licenses.
This is much the same as with VHC, where the CEO actually stated at a shareholder's meeting that he thought his company has the world's 5th best patent portfolio. #5! And, on top of that, estimated VHC to be worth around $200 per share. Yet, that valuation will not come to pass until VHC can show that they've wrestled AAPL, et.al. to the ground, proving conclusively that their security patents are essential to 4G/LTE and that there are no work-arounds.
The big boys here will not yield easily. Just as with the big tobacco boys not yielding easily to Star.
For VHC, their patent attorneys are the creme de la creme (McCool Smith). I am not aware of the gravitas of Star's patent attorneys. I still have some homework to do.
You are in over your head and looking out your rear end
doesn't give you a better view of the sky.
"You guys can continue to attack me personally, give my posts one star, blah blah. You can't argue with my logic or my insight, and the more you act like children, the more everyone else realizes you have no credibility, just hopes and dreams that this penny stock is a lottery ticket."
You hoped it would keep dropping. You lost.
Get over it.
You couldn't care less about the replies
other then to fight for your position,
that YOU feel Star is a loser.
Otherwise why are you here bashing?
I know this how?
You are ignorant and uninformed except for
superficial tripe you have quickly boned up on.
Sadly, if you bet short on this stock
as your posts seem to demonstrate
you are going to get boned.
Much real news is due.
I have been here for months, followed loosely
for 2 yrs...I know very little
compared to others and I know quite a bit.
This is NOT about a law suit.
This is about Anatabine
and then everything else.
'Massive Short Target'
caught your eye and wallet.
I hope you made your cash.
Now make your next move.
Stay short and you may not have the good fortune
of Lady Luck on the next many legs of Stars progress.
No offense but you wander on and challenge some
of the best and brightest longs and claim they are like 'children'?