"one of the emerging challenges of desktop virtualization is finding a remote desktop client that mobile device users will like, and one vendor's method of using keyboard shortcuts to improve the touchscreen experience on Windows applications could be the answer. with other apps you need to redesign the entire mobile user interface (UI) from the ground up, and depending on the application that could be a long process. That's where another approach comes in by a company called hopTo, which instead of redesigning the UI, focuses on making the things that are hard to do without a keyboard and mouse, easier to do with a finger.HopTo does this with a system of menus that correlate to keyboard shortcuts overlaid on top of a remote desktop session. (he continues on to discuss other hopTo advantages like soft keyboard, versatile toolbars and an about to be released hopTo feature called MAX-IE that renders Internet Explorer pages in the remote desktop session with the local device browser, allowing hopTo to provide mobile controls for desktop-oriented Web apps.) Until recently hopTo only worked with Microsoft's Remote Desktop Protocol, but its new integration wityh HDX opens the company to a MUCH WIDER POTENTIAL CUSTOMER BASE, so it LIKELY WON'T BE FLYING UNDER THE RADAR MUCH LONGER."
Forgot to mention that this was tweeted by Douglas Brown, yesterday 2/10/2016...
"the life cycle of a legacy desk top app can be extended thanks to a touch friendly use on a mobile device. You are TRULY GOING TO LOVE THIS. The company is called HOPTO. A few of my old CITRIX buddies
are over there and I've been helping a bit too as it is just such an impressive solution. I CAN'T EXPRESS THIS ENOUGH."
Recall reading the agreement that stated if just one of the iPRs went favorably that the money would remain invested. As reported, one of the IPRs was favorable, two weren't and one has yet TBD. Perhaps Techequity and CRDS are negotiating changes in the agreement. Perhaps Techequity has found an avenue out. Perhaps they are both awaiting the final IPR ruling.. Coleman was clearly evasive in discussing this. If they had pulled out before the updated concall, I would think that he was legally bound to say so. It was strange to me that Techequity made this commitment, seemingly unnecessarily, before the IPR decisions which was at least to me indicative of the overwhelmingly positive prospect. Techequity are pros in achieving IP value. How did they make this error in judgement?
How about the reality that almost 40% of outstanding shares are owned by the management team. Did JE fleece them without their having a clue?
the ever dwindling number that remain interested investors await Richard Coleman's update (next week?) regarding procedural direction attempting to reverse recent IPRs...and if CRDS has the sufficient $ to finance projected drawn out legal action. would e nice to hear a solid that the $10,000,000 from Techequity remains. If not, the $ from where? Richard certainly sounded like a beaten man on the last concall. Let's hope he can muster the energy to at least sound confident.
who welcomed in all of the increasingly BS touts pushing BS "sure winner pick em sites".. I have more updates on "ignore" than I HAVE providing legit CRDS commentary.
Legal counter attacks to be launched... Coleman and attorneys still believe CRDS will prevail. Game is only in the "middle innings". While not being specific re Techquity $10,000,000 (I guess as yet unresolved) assures that CRDS will have the $ means to pursue wherever legal roads may go...and talked to a more energetic pursuit to monetize non-972 patents.
How do you know they are keeping the money? No announcement has been made. Would think that if the $ was secure they would issue a release attesting to that ...to instill some degree of confidence.
Does CRDS keep the investment? Contractually, does it have to be returned? My understanding was that if one of the IPRs was positive, they get to keep the $. Am I right/wrong? Are Strong Box IP claims now totally compromised? Does JE abandon ship? How do the IPR rulings affect "non 972" potential claims?
just how does this impact their ability to do business with Strong Box... are they infringing on other patents now? can anyone now just replicate what they are doing or are other patents protecting Strong Box. do they have legal position/financial ability to challenge this ruling? impact on remaining suits? impact on non 972 patents? what are next planned steps if any? do they now have to return the $10,000,000 recently received? is the sky blue?
looking at this AM's trading...nothing good is happening. lotsa volume. all down. delay in ruling or negative
ruling...sure doesn't look good so far.
Final written decisions for consolidated IPRs due beginning 1/29 and 1/30.
Next 3 due (of five total) 2/2, 3/17 and 4/8. Positive results for CRDS will trigger trial dates probably no sooner than one year from decisions. Though if positive for CRDS settlement discussion may initiate. Even perhaps a company sale. So related to big $ judgements and significant shareholder rewards.. the $ adventure may be decided soon.