|
Post by busted1964 on Sept 8, 2012 15:10:53 GMT -5
From the Yahoo board Short Interest By sports_jjunkie . 4 hours ago . Permalink
This is one of the reason I got into EKDKQ. From the start of BK, EK was ,IMO, being manipulated by some entity for their play. Many have speculated that EKDKQ could trade as high #$%$ - $10 depending on the patent sale.
To the entity that is Shorting, $100 to $200 million is not a hindrance to this trade. It might just be part of the solution.
September 12, 2012 is a very important day for EKDKQ . The six months chart of EKDKQ tells you no knows the outcome from the sale of the DI patents.
Whats going for Longs is that ATLC lien priority claim filings that was scheduled for the Court Date of September 19, 2012 has been adjourned to October 17, 2012. ATLC agreed to wait until the dust settles.
From the OTC website:
Aug 15, 2012 22,508,335 Jul 31, 2012 21,210,567 Jul 13, 2012 21,028,363 Jun 29, 2012 22,537,451 Jun 15, 2012 23,198,145 May 31, 2012 23,061,324 May 15, 2012 23,109,853 Apr 30, 2012 23,199,817 Apr 13, 2012 21,527,740 Mar 30, 2012 21,477,720 Mar 15, 2012 21,511,080 Feb 29, 2012 22,562,882 Feb 15, 2012 23,250,813 Jan 31, 2012 29,587,985
Any comments?
|
|
|
Post by joefarina on Sept 8, 2012 15:48:08 GMT -5
busted.....the shorts were smart and very profitable...most of us have a cost basis under 30 cents a share as we picked up a bunch on the cheap.
assuming we get positive news......it is important that the scared longs only unload the minimum....shorts will cover or recover at a higher pps....
longs just sell the minimum so you can go on with living life but think of kodak as a longer term investment especially at these prices........tremendous upside here myopic morons!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Marriott on Sept 8, 2012 15:51:38 GMT -5
now your talkin'
|
|
|
Post by busted1964 on Sept 8, 2012 16:01:50 GMT -5
"Whats going for Longs is that ATLC lien priority claim filings that was scheduled for the Court Date of September 19, 2012 has been adjourned to October 17, 2012. ATLC agreed to wait until the dust settles."
What does ATLC stand for? If they adjourned to October 17, 2012 they must know something.
|
|
|
Post by def1metk on Sept 8, 2012 17:36:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Marriott on Sept 8, 2012 18:35:36 GMT -5
" ATLC is a patent troll contracted by kodak to search for patent violations...."
Are you sure ATLC was contracted by Kodak ?
|
|
|
Post by def1metk on Sept 8, 2012 18:46:03 GMT -5
See link..........
ATLC is alledging that kodak owes them money and kodak committed a breach of contract.
"I. Background The following facts are alleged in the Amended Complaint and taken as true for the purpose of ruling on the Motion to Dismiss. On July 30, 1998, the parties entered into an agreement (the “Representation Agreement”) whereupon Kodak “retained ATLC as Kodak’s exclusive representative to represent Kodak in patent license negotiations with respect to the licensing of DSC Patents to third parties.” (Doc. 61, ¶ 7). The “DSC Patents” are patents owned by Kodak “related to digital still cameras.” (Doc. 61, ¶ 7). Pursuant to the Agreement, if a product was suspected of violating one of the patents, ATLC would reverse engineer the product to determine which patents were violated, then negotiate an appropriate licensing fee with the infringing entity. ATLC would pay the costs andexpenses incurred in reverse engineering the products and negotiating the licensing fee, and in return, Kodak would pay ATLC a percentage of the resulting royalties. On April 4, 2006, ATLC filed a breach of contract suit against Kodak for violation of the Representation Agreement. Under the Agreement, Kodak was required to pay ATLC a portion of the royalties received from a license agreement with any third party with whom “ATLC had had ‘substantial negotiations’ or provided ‘substantial support services’ as defined in the Representation Agreement.” (Doc. 61, ¶ 8). The lawsuit alleged that Kodak “renegotiated certain patent license agreements which had originally been negotiated by ATLC in an effort, among other things, to convert the typical running royalty to a lump sum paid royalty.” (Doc. 61, ¶ 20). Kodak refused to pay commissions to ATLC on the lump sum royalties because it argued that the renegotiated license agreements amounted to “new” contracts, not subject to ATLC’s commissions. (Doc. 61, ¶ 20-21). The parties ultimately settled the lawsuit and entered into a settlement agreement and release effective August 27, 2007 (the “Settlement Agreement”)".
|
|
|
Post by Marriott on Sept 8, 2012 18:51:04 GMT -5
This clarified the relationship . Thank you.
|
|