bosley
- 20 Feb 2004 09:34
blinger
- 16 Jan 2006 17:58
- 14166 of 27111
they were 2.7m delayed sells, tin hats on tomorrow.
bhunt1910
- 16 Jan 2006 18:03
- 14167 of 27111
courtreporter - 16 Jan'06 - 17:57 - 57240 of 57240
copied from elsewhere
Court 74 11 until 4
Talks all weekend to reach settlement
Started with further talks in seperate room
No agreement reached
Stanelco appealing patent ownership, breach and prior art evidence application
Mlller went first dealing in the above order in his hesitating style
Discussion around capsule definition, unlikely to include sachets, based upon how formed
Core inventive concept challenged on grounds of how rather than idea of
Judges advocate settlement, mention of several years of litigation
Miller continues Tue
Impossible to call it at this stage
Will post on both threads to assist debate
I hope we settle with Stanelco to avoid this dragging on and on as it is more important to us than it is them in terms of core business.
blinger
- 16 Jan 2006 18:07
- 14168 of 27111
How many aliases do these rampers? have this is dreadful!+pond 1/cherryb etc.etc.
Posted: 16-Jan-06 at 17:06 | IP Logged
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There can be no doubt that there are several persons at least who have followed this case within the court today.
With the large buys of SEO that have come through and a closing price of .25p up. ( BPRG negative volume and a closing price of .25p down ) this presumably means that the result at the present level of proceedings looks like an outcome that may benefit SEO without having a serious effect on BPRG. As has been said many times, when this CC is over both companies can concentrate on the future. The next few days will tell.
__________________
Greekman
nicksig
- 16 Jan 2006 18:41
- 14169 of 27111
Blinger: As far as I can see it is impossible to tell whether the final trades are buys or sells. If they were reported an hour late the change in the sp at 16.07 makes no sense - it would have come earlier and would have been a more dramatic shift. To say they are both delayed sells is reckless and without ground. If you want to influence the sp negatively to go short you'll have to try hard than that.
blinger
- 16 Jan 2006 18:46
- 14170 of 27111
so they are not both sells then?-if not what do you see them as? - no surprises as we wait for the reply then- long are we?
my opinion is sells, hardly reckless to have an opinion?
The deals could well have been done earlier and if they were then on the "touch" price at the time, they are merely reported as an O trade.
nicksig
- 16 Jan 2006 19:10
- 14171 of 27111
It's reckless to try and panic traders that don't know better - which is what you continually try to do on this board. My point is that these trades cannot be identified as either buys or sells. If they had come earlier in the day, they could still be buys. Either way, there was support for the sp today...and as you rightly say tomorrow things will be clearer.
nicksig
- 16 Jan 2006 19:10
- 14172 of 27111
It's reckless to try and panic traders that don't know better - which is what you continually try to do on this board. My point is that these trades cannot be identified as either buys or sells. If they had come earlier in the day, they could still be buys. Either way, there was support for the sp today...and as you rightly say tomorrow things will be clearer.
jj50
- 16 Jan 2006 19:19
- 14173 of 27111
MAM lists trades for today as total 4.474,972 buys and 1,950,127 sells with orders of 1 and 1.75 million to buy going through at closing time.
blinger
- 16 Jan 2006 19:33
- 14174 of 27111
mam is wrong, they merely guess the closest to the touch price.
garyble
- 16 Jan 2006 19:37
- 14175 of 27111
BOS,
SEO continues to amaze! Hard to predict and so much potential!
Can't wait to see if another one of your amazing predictions is spot on for tomorrow.
garyble
- 16 Jan 2006 19:45
- 14176 of 27111
& BOS's guess is better!
blinger
- 16 Jan 2006 20:28
- 14177 of 27111
the first rule is never listen to rampers. the second rule is don`t forget the first rule,
the third rule is dump SEO as soon as poss.
lolol!!!!!!!!
garyble
- 16 Jan 2006 20:37
- 14178 of 27111
BOS,
There's a guy on another bb who sees the "MEN IN DARK GLASSES", I take it you'll be seeing the "MEN IN WHITE COATS" by the end of the week!!
bhunt1910
- 16 Jan 2006 21:06
- 14179 of 27111
My rul of thumb has always been to do the opposite of whatever Bling says - its almost guarantted to work and has been pretty fool proof up to now.
explosive
- 16 Jan 2006 21:19
- 14180 of 27111
Bling post 14177... Crap post for someone like you.... The first rule is never listen to rampers, second rule never listen to derampers, third rule is if you can't make up your own mind then invest yer hard earned cash elsewhere.... At least if you follow these rules you only have yourself to blame!!
shamona
- 16 Jan 2006 21:29
- 14181 of 27111
The court report is phoney, take my word for it chaps.
hewittalan6
- 16 Jan 2006 22:02
- 14182 of 27111
My word, but my ermined friend is getting some stick tonight.
i'm almost tempted to unfilter him for a laugh.
Let me guess; Last week and the weekend would have been; "The court case will make it crash", mixed with a bit about shorters selling more and longs selling out at the 11th hour.
This evening will be all about how it will still happen, we're a bunch of numptys for not selling out, the buys are sells and the sells are buys and........................
ROTHGFSRYJMSOPM, or whatever he always says when he has nothing to say.
Don't know if I've guessed right, but he always was a tad predictable.
Alan
explosive
- 16 Jan 2006 22:22
- 14183 of 27111
Hahahaha, about the size of the last few posts by the derampers Alan...
I'm playing safe, lets see what the next couple of weeks have to offer..
bhunt1910
- 16 Jan 2006 22:46
- 14184 of 27111
Ignore Shamona - several others on other boards who know people who were there have confirmed that the report was generally accurate.
tweenie
- 17 Jan 2006 06:17
- 14185 of 27111
Does anyone know how many days have been set aside for the court case by the bench?