"I don't read him - don't want to give him a penny even." That's exactly how I feel, and about SA too. If there is a SA article about QCOR, I come on here to see if is QTR, and if so I just skip it (giving up the entertainment value of reading the comments) .
A search for the word "unsustainable" did not find it in either the fourth quarter press release or the fourth quarter conference call. In other words, the CEO didn't make this statement quoted, the poster made it up.
And you knew exactly what the Supreme Court justices would think and ask, right? Just the idea that Roberts and Sotomayor wouldn't be there supporting MITK is more than should even be considered, right? So there is no need to even discuss such a possibility, because everything always will be just right for MITK, right?
Just don't admit the possibility that things would be too hard or too soft for MITK, too warm or too cold for MITK, right Goldilocks?
The real world ain't Disney, Goldilocks you little #$%$!
I think Alice v CLS is not the rage of the internet because there aren't that many public companies with a business model significantly dependent on suing for infringement of overly broad software patents and then collecting licensing fees. That is much more typical of a private patent troll like Alice, not companies that attract internet page views like Microsoft. But that is where MITK is too, since its "take a loss on every sale but make it up on volume" model hasn't yet been successful.
And FYI, there are lost of amicus curiea briefs on Alice v CLS. Look it up.
It cracks me up to see in all these posts that there is no reason for the 25% haircut in the last two weeks simply because you aren't reading it on the internet. But when the Alice decision is returned (which Alice might win, allowing patent trolls everywhere to keep sucking blood from American companies), we shall see just how meaningless.
Microsoft will rely on its copyrights, just like they did prior to change in interpretation of the law about 1995.
SCOTUS receives over 10,000 appeals each year and chooses to hear about 70. If there weren't significant legal issues here, why do you think they chose to consider Alice vs CLS?
Oral arguments in Alice Corp v CLS Bank, to define when a patent based on a computer software program is valid. Should be interesting. I plan to find the transcript on the supremecourt website and if she's on watch Marcia Coyle of the National Law Journal on the PBS Newshour to get a flavor for the justices' questions.
If the MITK patents become vulnerable to validity challenges because the non-software components are not useful, novel and NON-OBVIOUS, what is left of MITK? Seems like just an app developer losing money in a fast-growing and fast-changing market.
So now you've given up on your statement of 90 minutes ago and have a completely different rationale? Typical!
" How could MITK sue Kofax if there has been no damages (no business taken from MITK) to date!"
And just how far along in taking business was TISA when MITK sued them on September 26, 2012? TISA was just flying in to their first big mobile conference to roll out their product, as I recall. No possible damages, then. And you were certainly around at that time, and so know that.
This type of statement is what marks you as a pumper, laserman, rather than an investor looking to learn facts and evaluate stocks.
Now I really, really wish my order to short MITK had gone through. MITK is now down over $1, or over 20%, in just 8 trading days! Returns like that are hard to beat - and I missed out :-(
Too bad TISA hasn't jumped a similar amount on the prospect of the MITK patent lawsuit disappearing. Of course, less of TISA's enterprise value lies with their mobile products than does MITK's.
That information is your second indication that the post about Mitek v USAA by stevebuck was a shameless pump. The first indication was that he referred to information on Pacer as a "company PR".
"According to the company PR, there was a claims construction (Markman Hearing) a few weeks ago which was very favorable for Mitek..."
Insiders have been selling for years. If you think insider selling will predict a coming price decline, you'll have to explain why that prediction would have been wrong when QCOR was $5, $10 and $20.
What is it, a double bottom, triple bottom, quadruple bottom around $60-61? Less than a month ago this board was a madhouse once Q dropped to those levels, so I don't understand why it now seems like no one can be bothered. Strengthening a support level sounds good to me.
My conviction (driven by SCOTUS oral arguments now in less than a week) was that I tried to short this last Monday at $4.95 (right after the open when guys like you were spewing about a 150,000 share buy). That would have been my first short in over a decade. My order was rejected by Vanguard, they said NO shares were available to short. It is clear to me there would have been more shorting and more price declines if there were more shares actually available to short.
It sounds like TISA technology with security features grafted on top. I'm doubtful XRX developed it on its own - if they had something like this in-house nearly ready to go, why would they have partnered with TISA in Brazil to roll out similar capabilities? Stole it or collaborated on it or licensed it, I don't know, but I tend to think big companies are too conservative to steal something like this, the legal downside is too high. But if it was a license or a collaboration, I can see XRX presenting it as developed by (as compared to tweaked by) Xerox in their PR, it just makes them sound better and thus might help sales.
For the record: "Novel imaging technology developed by Xerox enables users to take high quality photos of multipage documents without even pressing a button. The app simply waits for the user to hold the smartphone camera with a steady hand in front of the document, and knows when to automatically capture the photo at the right moment. Additional technology behind the scenes automatically crops and cleans up captured pages, and stitches them together into a crisp and clear document image for transmission. At the same time a built-in proprietary secure transfer system safely delivers it to its intended recipient. Numerous delivery options can be selected and users automatically receive receipt confirmation or can check on delivery status. A simple user interface walks users through the process."