I agree with you that the only thing that matters now is the hearing, and I realize that the observations and questions I'm about pose will have no bearing on what happens, but: I'm a long time holder of GIFT (bought at 2, rode it up, sold 40% at 6, rode the rest down and been holding ever since); hadn't given GIFT a lot of thought this year (40% of 60% of my initial investment isn't a lot of money); joined SI a few months ago; was considering adding to my position so last week waded through but didn't read all of the 1500+ posts here and learned a whole lot; and I have just a few things to say and ask. Although I might sound a bit negative, I am still holding and still consider adding, but I will get to that later.
First, thanks to everyone for the intelligent discourse and learned posts.
I'm not a patent lawyer and don't pretend to be, but I've been invovled in enough legal proceedings (don't ask) that I can make my way through a document, and I too was fairly unimpressed with the repsonse to the briefs. It's quite possible, like Mel stated, that the written responses aren't as significant as what's argued at the hearing -- I don't know -- but what was submitted seemed shoddy to me. It was asked what other case(s) Fink has litigated and, if it was answered, I didn't see it. I'd be curious to know on what his fine reputation is based.
When I first got interested in and purchased GIFT, I had read of GIFT's reasonableness in levying licensing fees as it didn't want to cut its own throat with prohibitive fees, but I never knew what those fees would be until I read through the thread. As someone who's been involved in retail and telemarketing, I can attest that 5% of the gross is not an inconsequential additional cost. Profit margins are often very small, especially in a mass-market which is what the internet is. I'm not saying usage of the patent, if it is upheld, isn't worth 5%, I'm saying that it's not some minor nuisance that marketers can just shrug their shoulders at and go on. It will cause them to reconsider at what cost they will have to sell their products/data. No wonder so many companies declined to pay it and preferred to pay the legal fees to fight it. I don't suppose that convenience of the companies that will be required to license the patent is a consideration of Judge Jones in determining the validity of the patent, but there it is, nevertheless, GIFT will be a hindrance to internet commerce, especially to smaller companies.
Still, there's an enticing speculation here. I'm currently less enthralled by the long term potential of the stock (which, I agree, might be dazzling) as I am by the speculation on the specualtion. I believe we're going to see a big bounce when the date of the hearing is set, and the price could very well inflate even further as the hearing approaches. If the case isn't dismissed prior to a hearing, there should be no reason except greed why anyone in at this level should lose money on GIFT. Mel's strategy of selling « at a double -- often a pipe dream -- seems very feasible here.
If I had any spare cash right now, GIFT is absolutely positively one of the stocks I would be considering to invest in further. As it is, I will continue holding my shares and, if I come across some dough, will possibly add. In either case, I'll be watching closely and rooting for the best. Happy Markman Hearings everyone .... Richard |
