B Riley stated to the judge that he did indeed request the judge to do that several times and actually putting it in the original JMOL request submitted during the trial. She mentioned something to the fact that she would have to review the court transcript because it was something she could have overlooked. Riley was sort of telling her....... just how far was he supposed to go to push her to advise the jury because she had already determined that Diablo violated the agreement, when she issued the Preliminary Injunction.
look the only think getting pumped is you and jsm ok. Just because we are positive about the stock and have an optimistic attitude doesn't mean we are out promoting the stock and trying to talk people into buying it. I see no one here trying to tell people to buy it. Putting forth technical information and news articles is nothing more than sharing information. If someone wants to buy the stock based on that, without doing their own DD, its their risk. Stop playing nanny and trying to save the world.No one here lies more than YOU. Your analogy is flawed.
In all my 30+ years investing in the market, the thought never come to my mind to go and trash the company that I didnt make money with. The blame is not with the company, its me, I pulled the trigger and made the decisions that either kept me in it too long or got out too early. And thats it....move on to the next page. Those guys are beyond losers.
Hey poopster, If Diablo disabled the ID chip, how did the data get through the chip, or what was the chips purpose?? You didnt answer Chung comment...
Hey poopster? Did you read the transcript? Oh really...."she will do is say I grant a appeals" haha really? She won't make a decision on the JMOL or request for a new trial? She will grant the appeal? Is that the way the process works? She grants the appeal and not the Appellant Court?
Hmmmm. gee your smart.
That stooge Pippy seems to think that because they were awarded $2 that was the extent of the damage. The DA must not know that $2 is all the law allows for. Regardless, the jury did find that NLST was damaged by the use of the ID chip
Have you read the court transcript from July 8th hearing? It has some very telling information about the thoughts of the judge and her leanings in the case. It all centers on her lack of instruction to the jury, that the jury was not there to decide IF the supply agreement was violated. She failed to instruct them to decide only if NLST was damaged by the violation of the supply agreement. She acknowledged that had NLST attorneys asked her to instruct the jury of this, she would have done it. Right now....she is likely reexamining the whole court transcript to decide if she likely erred.
From JEDEC guidelines ..."Certain exceptions apply to the licensing requirement. A Committee Member will not be required to license or continue to license its Essential Patent Claims to a Potential Licensee for a particular Standard
if: (i) such Potential Licensee does not agree to grant a license to all other Potential Licensees under such Potential Licensee’s Essential Patent Claims of that Standard on RAND terms and conditions for the approved Standard and/or (ii) such Potential Licensee has commenced or has threatened to commence patent litigation targeting such Committee Member’s products that are meant to comply with that Standard." Question: Has NLST patents been the target of patent litigation? We all know the answer to that question all too well.
JEDEC most certainly adopted the design architecture from HyperCloud for use in DDR4 LRDIMM and there will be monetary benefits coming.
Just watch and see. Diablo court case was just the precursor and a necessary starting point for NLST. They are not big enough right now to take on everyone, and time will run its course...eventually leading to some sort of revenues from the IP. And it will surely be retroactive. These companies using the "distributed buffer architecture" design in their current DDR4 LRDIMM products have been put on notice and likely already have been formulating / negotiating agreement terms. Don't worry about the stock price.....That's the market makers game currently in place.