Comments on Trader Dave's articles RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.com/author/trader-dave/articles http://seekingalpha.com/article/135740-modavox-bringing-a-gun-to-the-online-advertising-knife-fight?source=feed#comment-499627 499627 Mon, 11 May 2009 19:15:47 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/135740-modavox-bringing-a-gun-to-the-online-advertising-knife-fight?source=feed#comment-495340 495340 Fri, 08 May 2009 09:19:22 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/135740-modavox-bringing-a-gun-to-the-online-advertising-knife-fight?source=feed#comment-494365 494365 Thu, 07 May 2009 15:19:07 -0400
Just read any given penny stocks own 10K-SB and 10Q-SB filed with the SEC.

What ever you do, do not miss the ever important notes to these financial statments filed with the SEC. It is there that nothing can be exaggerated. It is there that no lies can be told.

This company's own 10K-SB. Even more of a tell.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/135740-modavox-bringing-a-gun-to-the-online-advertising-knife-fight?source=feed#comment-493262 493262 Thu, 07 May 2009 01:59:07 -0400
www.businessinsider.co...

www.businessinsider.co...

...and I included this little quote from the second article:

"Patent trolls often file infringement claims after deals are announced in the hopes that a "contingent liability clause" might result in an immediate payoff (lest the deal be stalled).
The AOL-Tacoda deal does not have a "hidden contingent liability" clause that could cause it to be put on hold until Modavox can be persuaded to go away. It is still on track to close soon.
The patent in this case concerns some personalization technologies that were relevant in the late 90s (when the patent was filed).
Some not-disinterested parties who have examined the patent regard it as one of those ridiculous patents that never should have been issued and will eventually be declared invalid.
AOL has been very aggressive about defending IP lawsuits in the past.
Defendants in patent-troll cases have many options, including searching for "RocketDocket" districts in which to file counter-legislation asking that patents be declared invalid. The goal here is to force the troll to put its money where its mouth is in terms of ongoing legal fees--and, better yet, to possibly expunge the patent before the original infringement suit even gets to court."

...now what exactly did "seekingalpha" see that merited censorship?...]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/135740-modavox-bringing-a-gun-to-the-online-advertising-knife-fight?source=feed#comment-493030 493030 I don't think so. We've heard this story before. > > ----------------------... > The question remains, is there a gun that could put an end to the > proverbial knife fight? That gun just may be a company named Modavox > (http://seekingalpha.com/symbol/mdvx.ob), recently written about > by Microcap Speculator in his article “Modavox Surges on Favorable > Patent News."]]> Wed, 06 May 2009 20:28:49 -0400
Really enjoy your postings finding you to be very sharp. I disagree here however. Appreciate your thoughts nonetheless.


On May 06 04:07 PM Cetin Hakimoglu wrote:

> I don't think so. We've heard this story before.
>
> ----------------------...
> The question remains, is there a gun that could put an end to the
> proverbial knife fight? That gun just may be a company named Modavox
> (seekingalpha.com/symbo...), recently written about
> by Microcap Speculator in his article “Modavox Surges on Favorable
> Patent News."]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/135740-modavox-bringing-a-gun-to-the-online-advertising-knife-fight?source=feed#comment-492419 492419 Your comments hardly dignifies a response. In fact, your comment > says much more about you than it does this company. If your so convinced > of your own thoughts, then I simply I suggest you step up and short > the stock. Put your money where your mouth is and tell us your doing > so. If you believe half of what you wrote, that would seem to be > a reasonable course of action would it not? > > So you are aware, the company has never paid a single dime for stock > promotion in the last 3.5 years since new management took over. Furthermore, > not a member of management has sold a single share since they took > over 3.5 years ago. The shares have seen an increase from 25 cents > to over $4 and not one share sold by management. The patent you cited > was their first patent awarded in 2002. As you noted, it is broad.It > was their second patent issued in September 2007 that you would be > better served to review. For someone so seemingly inteligent, you'd > be better served to reaearch your facts before commenting or it makes > your commentary paramount to "garbage in garbage out" > > Furthermore, you are so quick to rush to judgement that I wonder > if your even capable of seeing the forrest through the tree's?did > you know that Shelly Meyers, ranked the number one fund manager in > 2002 by Morningstar just took over as Chairwoman. John Devlin, a > 30 year wall street veteran and brother of billionaire Bob Devlin > just joined the board and Mark Saverini, founder of the Grammercy > Group sold to Publicis just came on as CEO. I guess you'd suggest > these quality individuals had nothing better to do? > > Why don't you do all of us a favor and try not and let your emotions > overun your sense of decency and decorum to others. If you want to > argue facts and investment merits, then bring it on. If you want > to attack others with reckless abandon, do it somewhere else.
> > Again, put your money where your mouth is my friend. Otherwise your > lip service is just that, rude, innacurate and emotionally driven > lipservice pontificated by someone seeking to hear only your own > voice at the expense of others here.]]> Wed, 06 May 2009 14:16:40 -0400
You might ask them why they were unsuccessful in invalidating it with the USPTO which they tried. ask them about the prior art they found. Ask them how with their abundance of resources and modavox's small stature, they have failed at making it go away? You might ask them why they approached Modavox for initial settlement talks?

Perhaps them being intimately involved with the merits of the case against them and Modavox's patents, they could better educate you with respect to who or who may not prevail?

Considering that Modavox just won the recent Markman ruling with respect to claims definitions, I'd suggest you stay tuned.


On May 06 02:08 PM Sean H. wrote:

> Your comments hardly dignifies a response. In fact, your comment
> says much more about you than it does this company. If your so convinced
> of your own thoughts, then I simply I suggest you step up and short
> the stock. Put your money where your mouth is and tell us your doing
> so. If you believe half of what you wrote, that would seem to be
> a reasonable course of action would it not?
>
> So you are aware, the company has never paid a single dime for stock
> promotion in the last 3.5 years since new management took over. Furthermore,
> not a member of management has sold a single share since they took
> over 3.5 years ago. The shares have seen an increase from 25 cents
> to over $4 and not one share sold by management. The patent you cited
> was their first patent awarded in 2002. As you noted, it is broad.It
> was their second patent issued in September 2007 that you would be
> better served to review. For someone so seemingly inteligent, you'd
> be better served to reaearch your facts before commenting or it makes
> your commentary paramount to "garbage in garbage out"
>
> Furthermore, you are so quick to rush to judgement that I wonder
> if your even capable of seeing the forrest through the tree's?did
> you know that Shelly Meyers, ranked the number one fund manager in
> 2002 by Morningstar just took over as Chairwoman. John Devlin, a
> 30 year wall street veteran and brother of billionaire Bob Devlin
> just joined the board and Mark Saverini, founder of the Grammercy
> Group sold to Publicis just came on as CEO. I guess you'd suggest
> these quality individuals had nothing better to do?
>
> Why don't you do all of us a favor and try not and let your emotions
> overun your sense of decency and decorum to others. If you want to
> argue facts and investment merits, then bring it on. If you want
> to attack others with reckless abandon, do it somewhere else.

>
> Again, put your money where your mouth is my friend. Otherwise your
> lip service is just that, rude, innacurate and emotionally driven
> lipservice pontificated by someone seeking to hear only your own
> voice at the expense of others here.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/135740-modavox-bringing-a-gun-to-the-online-advertising-knife-fight?source=feed#comment-492394 492394 Wed, 06 May 2009 14:08:14 -0400
So you are aware, the company has never paid a single dime for stock promotion in the last 3.5 years since new management took over. Furthermore, not a member of management has sold a single share since they took over 3.5 years ago. The shares have seen an increase from 25 cents to over $4 and not one share sold by management. The patent you cited was their first patent awarded in 2002. As you noted, it is broad.It was their second patent issued in September 2007 that you would be better served to review. For someone so seemingly inteligent, you'd be better served to reaearch your facts before commenting or it makes your commentary paramount to "garbage in garbage out"

Furthermore, you are so quick to rush to judgement that I wonder if your even capable of seeing the forrest through the tree's?did you know that Shelly Meyers, ranked the number one fund manager in 2002 by Morningstar just took over as Chairwoman. John Devlin, a 30 year wall street veteran and brother of billionaire Bob Devlin just joined the board and Mark Saverini, founder of the Grammercy Group sold to Publicis just came on as CEO. I guess you'd suggest these quality individuals had nothing better to do?

Why don't you do all of us a favor and try not and let your emotions overun your sense of decency and decorum to others. If you want to argue facts and investment merits, then bring it on. If you want to attack others with reckless abandon, do it somewhere else.

Again, put your money where your mouth is my friend. Otherwise your lip service is just that, rude, innacurate and emotionally driven lipservice pontificated by someone seeking to hear only your own voice at the expense of others here. ]]>