Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Infosonics Corp. Message Board

cherk_on 1531 posts  |  Last Activity: Sep 1, 2016 11:57 AM Member since: Aug 13, 2009
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • cherk_on cherk_on Sep 1, 2016 11:57 AM Flag

    A huge difference in this lawsuit and the reason why the law firm is willing to do it on contingency fee basis is because of the fact that three of the patents are battle tested and survived multiple IPRs.

    The initial drop in price is caused by fear that this would increase legal expenses for NLST. Once the market realize that this lawsuit does NOT increase NLST's legal expense, the price will go back up again and focus on the the size of the settlement just from Hynix alone. The CFO already confirmed on the CC that this lawsuit would not increase legal expenses ('legal expenses will be flat'). A large law firm would only invest this much money on a lawsuit if the settlement or award will be huge.

  • Sounds like lawyer is working on a contingency fee basis. See Q&A doc on company website.

  • Reply to

    S-3/A is amended S-3 from 2014

    by edvoks Aug 23, 2016 12:57 PM
    cherk_on cherk_on Aug 23, 2016 1:05 PM Flag

    As I noted on the new board, every company keep an updated S3 around. It's the 424B5 filing that means anything. Whether they will actually file a 424B5 in a few months will depend on whether licensing deals are signed, EV3 and NV4 product sales, and more importantly, the next phase of the Samsung deal..will they license or buy the HybriDIMM NVDIMM-P tech from Netlist, or buy the whole company. So many possibilities in just a couple of months!

  • Reply to

    The NLST tank

    by cherk_on Aug 23, 2016 10:26 AM
    cherk_on cherk_on Aug 23, 2016 10:35 AM Flag

    You know what's more dangerous than trying to catch a falling knife? It's trying to prevent a rocket from launching by piling money on top of the rocket.

  • cherk_on by cherk_on Aug 23, 2016 10:26 AM Flag

    The NLST "tank" blasted through a 50K "block" @1.65 with its main gun and rolled over it in a blink of an eye.

  • cherk_on cherk_on Aug 10, 2016 12:47 PM Flag

    From 11/19/2015 8K filing:
    "Both parties may enter into an additional agreement in the future for Samsung to be granted commercial license for the Company’s NVDIMM-P technology. The JDLA also includes a Right of First Refusal wherein the Company will provide Samsung the right to acquire the Company’s NVDIMM-P technology in a separate, subsequent transaction before the Company offers the technology to a third party."

    Any guesses on how much NLST CEO would be willing to sell NVDIMM-P (HybriDIMM) to Samsung for? How much for the whole company now that key seminal LRDIMM and NVDIMM patents have survived IPR and re-exams, and the NV4, EV3, and now HybriDIMM products have been developed?

  • cherk_on cherk_on Aug 9, 2016 8:07 AM Flag

    Also keep in mind that they will be doing a mobile version of HybriDIMM (HyperVault) as well. Ultimately, my hope is that they will get bought out by Samsung or any other company that fully recognize the value of Netlist's patents. With the '537 Reexam Certificate being issued last week and the comment on the earnings call about being in detailed negotiation, I would expect LRDIMM and potentially NVDIMM related patent licensing deal to be announced very soon.

  • cherk_on cherk_on Aug 9, 2016 7:19 AM Flag

    Official PR on HybriDIMM is out this morning!

  • cherk_on cherk_on Aug 8, 2016 5:05 PM Flag

    Another interesting piece of info from the insidehpc site: "Xilinx and Integrated Device Technology (IDT) have also partnered with Netlist to create an ecosystem that drives broad adoption of HybriDIMM in the market place."

  • cherk_on cherk_on Aug 8, 2016 1:28 PM Flag

    Official PR on HybriDIMM (p.k.a. HyperVault) have not even been released yet, and the stock is already moving on reports from the Flash Memory Summit! Can't wait to see what happens when the official PR goes out the the main stream tech media start talking about HybriDIMM!

  • Huge focus on Storage Class Memory in the Flash Memory Summit next week! HyperVault will be getting a lot of attention next week! Similar to last year, Netlist will likely put out a PR on Monday announcing what they will be showcasing in the Flash Memory Summit. Anyone dare to bet HyperVault won't be on the list?

    I dare you to hold a short position over this weekend!!!

  • Reply to

    It's going to be an exciting week next week!

    by cherk_on Jul 28, 2016 10:58 AM
    cherk_on cherk_on Aug 1, 2016 12:08 PM Flag

    With the latest update posted this morning (8/1/16), the timing of "available for enforcement" is no longer an educated guess, it is now a public fact. Good luck to all the true believers!

  • Reply to

    It's going to be an exciting week next week!

    by cherk_on Jul 28, 2016 10:58 AM
    cherk_on cherk_on Jul 29, 2016 12:24 PM Flag

    ["available for enforcement"]

  • Anyone selling must not know about 7/15/16, 7/20/16, [8/1/16 or 8/2/16] and is betting against 8/3/16. It's going to be an exciting week next week!

  • cherk_on cherk_on Jun 8, 2016 12:07 PM Flag

    It might cost the company some money to fight with Paragon, but management can use the distraction since they're not really busy doing anything. Perhaps the proxy fight might get RBCN some attention and get some new investors as a result. While I will not vote for Paragon's candidates because I am not clear about their motivation given the few shares they own, they did do a nice proposal about how to squeeze some value from the company's real estate. I suspect Paragon is after RBCN's cash.

  • SMSI / Smith mentioned working with another that was not as big as Comcast, but also very big. Could this be it?

    "Charter Communications (NASDAQ: CHTR) CEO Tom Rutledge said his company can now potentially offer a nationwide wireless service because its Time Warner Cable (NYSE: TWC) acquisition gives it access to the same Verizon (NYSE: VZ) MVNO agreement as Comcast."

  • If BEAT fails to get 51%, the deal does not close. Gastineau's offer would become the superior offer automatically if BEAT fails to get 51% even after extending the offer.

    This mornings PR from VSCP at least confirm that the Gastineau offer was received by VSCP. While the terms cannot be considered a superior offer at this point, Gastineau can work on refining the offer. There is no time limit or deadline as long as BEAT does not get 51%.

    Bottom line, do not tender your shares. If you already did, you can call your broker and tell them you changed your mind. It is not even about choosing between BEAT or Gastineau. VSCP would trade higher even without a deal with either one of them! Frankly, I would rather Gastineau or "Company C" come in after VSCP shares have traded freely to reflect the progress the company have made recently.

  • cherk_on cherk_on May 5, 2016 10:08 AM Flag

    feeways,

    I believe my previous post counters every point from the tender doc justifying their reasons to sell. Was any of my points invalid in your mind?

    I would also like to add that the reason I believe Converse and the rest of the BOD is agreeing to sell is because 3 of the BOD members are affiliated with Loeb and Merck GHI which together represent 20% of the shares. If these large shareholders want to sell, does Converse and the other board members really have any other choice but to go along with the deal? If they don't, they will be out of a job soon enough. As I explained before, Merck GHI is of course willing to sell since they will get their original investment back after accounting for the dividend payments they received so far. As for Loeb, they are probably just tired after waiting so many years and probably just want out.

    Unlike Loeb, I am willing to wait and see how the rest of the turnaround story unfolds.

    my previous post:
    ----------------
    The growing bookings and backlogs proves that VSCP is still able to compete effectively despite its relatively small size. As for the need for continued capital investment in its technology, while that is true in the long term, there is no urgency there. Additional investment in their IT infrastructure can wait until the company is generating more cash given that they have already made some significant investments there in the past year or so.

    As for the negotiation history where it started from a low price, it was based on the lower stock price at the time, and did not reflect the progress in the recent couple of quarters. Even the $4.05 offer was made before the Q4 2015 earnings were released, which everyone probably agrees would have caused the share price to go up significantly higher than $4.05. Current offer should be based on the current state of the company and reflect the progress the company has made in the past couple of quarters; what the previous offers were is irrelevant.

  • Reply to

    Eric Converse...

    by feeways May 4, 2016 4:55 PM
    cherk_on cherk_on May 4, 2016 6:52 PM Flag

    The growing bookings and backlogs proves that VSCP is still able to compete effectively despite its relatively small size. As for the need for continued capital investment in its technology, while that is true in the long term, there is no urgency there. Additional investment in their IT infrastructure can wait until the company is generating more cash given that they have already made some significant investments there in the past year or so.

    As for the negotiation history where it started from a low price, it was based on the lower stock price at the time, and did not reflect the progress in the recent couple of quarters. Even the $4.05 offer was made before the Q4 2015 earnings were released, which everyone probably agrees would have caused the share price to go up significantly higher than $4.05. Current offer should be based on the current state of the company and reflect the progress the company has made in the past couple of quarters; what the previous offers were is irrelevant.

  • Reply to

    University of Rochester ?

    by jk522caz Apr 28, 2016 3:13 PM
    cherk_on cherk_on Apr 28, 2016 7:12 PM Flag

    Just to be clear, UofR was not part of original 20% support for this deal. The original 20% came from Loeb and Merck GHI. It's all spelled out in the SEC filing.

IFON
0.5001-0.0199(-3.83%)4:00 PMEDT