I have always tried to be relatively dispassionate when things like this happen. (I guess that comes from having to manage a few cardiac arrests while in training). I have been quite bullish on Augme but have always tried to also be honest with myself on why I am bullish. Right now I am trying to separate emotions from rational thinking. Obviously none of us knows why the judge ruled this way, especially in light of his apparent/supposed previous leanings toward Augme. I know that with IP there is more to consider in any given case about infringement than just patent validity. We can only speculate on the bases for his ruling; in time we will understand more about that. My opinion is that this does not reflect on the validity of Augme's patents at all. With these cases there are usually issues of validity, essentiality, and whether the defendant actually infringed or "worked around" the IP of the plaintiff. Until his full opinion is made public we really don't know what his thinking is. His ruling at this time certainly does seem strange given the scenario this case has apparently followed. I am sure these considerations are what GP is studying at this time. I am certainly not bailing out of the stock at this time, and will wait for clarification of many developments before I jump out of my one story window. As JT says, "Hang on".
Hi HB.....appreciate your thoughts and composure. Their are millions if not billions on the planet suffering a poorer fate than we bruised Augme shareholders. Dispassionate or disengaged as it were are two powerful dispositions for reacting to this event. First of all, one bright way of looking at it is had we not had our significantrun-up from last week, we would surely be trading under one dollar IMO. Secondly Sirius so emphatically and correctly I might add, reminds us that we are not a patent troll by any means. We are a growing company with valuable IP that one day will be realized and we will undoubtedly receive a return on our investment as HC grows and Aug continues it's litigation. You know, something occurred to me HB and I'd like your opinion. If you recall a few weeks back Judge McMahon returned to her office to find a mailbox overflowing with requests/motions to move the AOL litigation to Spero. She reacted very angrily towards Aol's counsel using some terminology that some may have construed as "You have now insulted my intelligence and now your screwed" "No one changes or suggest to me that I change my docket" Although in my dreams the world is overun with honest, decent and intrinsically good people, some have suggested that Yahoo's pockets bought and paid for what I agree with you on as a very strange turn of events given the way things had proceeded to date. I can't help to wonder now if, in fact, AOL had an agenda for their attempts to move their trial to Spero. Good day to you from the peanut gallery my friend and take care of that ticker. We need people like you in this world. Peace. Mick.
Do you guys realize that there STILL hasn't been any public announcement??
Pacer is NOT considered an information dissemination source!
My broker has no idea wh this stock is down. If not for you guys, neither would I and I find that quite disturbing.
mick, you bring up a very interesting point! I do remember that in fact. Makes you wonder right as to why move thing to Spero?? Was he bought out already? Is Yahoo and AOL council commingling on this to weaken Augme's hand? These are not out of question at all. The bright site to this is that now GP can move the docket to Virginia rocket docket! Let see what GP and the gang has plans for now. But no matter what...AOL is screwed as their motions have been denied!
This ruling very well may have nothing to do with the validity of Augme's patents. Perhaps Yahoo! simply established they were not infringing.
However, it does bring in to question how valuable the IP portfolio may prove to be.
Furthermore, it brings into question how successful AUGT will be in securing non-dilutive financing.
Perhaps most importantly it brings into question the credibility and competence of the CEO, especially in light of his extemely bullish posturing during the last CC and reportedly at the SH meeting.
It appears Paul and his team may have got caught speculating on news and they have been hung out to dry.
Miami, you are correct about the market reaction, but remember that there can be more than one reason why people sell. Sometimes stocks get sold off, not because the seller thinks the company is less valuable in the long run, but because he believes that others will sell, thinking it is less valuable. He doesn't want to ride it down, but he continues to follow developments and will plan to buy back in when the dust settles. This development is certainly a major disappointment out of the blue (and quite painful to me), and it seems these things happen quite often when investing in stocks where litigation is part of the evolving story. We all know that stocks get hammered on perception, and that perception may or may not turn out to be justified over time. This is why I am waiting to learn more about why this judge ruled this way, and understand more about the response planned by GP..