Pluvia; It's Friday night, 6:30pm and I'm retiring from this banter for a few welcome days off and to enjoy my spoils for the week along with my fellow longs. Before I leave, help me understand this...
<From all I have read on this settlement it looked like SRCM was eager to settle because they did not want to litigate and they did not want to risk losing the challenge.>
What the hell does that mean? SRCM didn't want to lose, they didn't want to fight, so they were eager to SETTLE for a win. Boy, what morons they are!!! Who owns the technology? SRCM Who is marketing the technology? SRCM. Why hasn't GTE had anything to say on the matter. Did you ask them? If yes, please give the name of the person as I'd like to speak with him.
<From what I understand, GTE did not "lose" anything on the settlement - GTE looks like they made out like a bandit on the deal - read the 10K. Feel free to correct me with some hard facts.>
You clearly don't understand anything. Hard facts, where are yours? How exactly did GTE make out like bandits? Which 10K specifically are you referring to? What page?
<Furthermore, the issue was a technology that is a world apart from internet service. IMO SRCM's patents CLEARLY DO NOT restrict anyone from providing cable internet access. >
What does this mean? Which patents ? Do you know The numbers? I do. Haveyou read them? I have. I'm long.
You know, you start off good, almost believable, but the more you posted the last few days the more I see a guy who is probably very short this stock and very scared right now. The more you spew baseless arguments with no specifics the more comfortable I feel being long.
When I get back on Monday I'll provide those pattent #'s if you need them and I'll try to find the real scoop on the GTE settlement.
Have a wonderful weekend; HANG IN THERE LONGS
MW
|
