Netlist Inc (QB) (NLST) 銘柄情報

yes you are correct. we shouldnt be going at this alone. teaming up with a major manufacturer would increase our revenue stream by leaps and bounds, put us on the map, and keep us from diluting.

all just my frustated opinion.... just hope what you state as opinion doesnt come true because it is feasible!!!

if he saw it any other way he wouldnt be human. if i was him i'd be talking refund to irell for sub standard service, or hey... this next trial is on you.... we had this in the bag except for this juror issue. so now we pay them again, double for the same thing not too mention time wasted.

.they should make a deal with sk or even merge with them and take the market over. then sk could just tell nvda and the others to get there stuff from nlst because it works.......
yes that would be the wise thing...... I guess I don't think like everyone else in saying HONG for pres. I don't think he cares that much about share holders ..
he will dilute again and again if he has to because he knows in the end this will make him a billionaire.. and damn the share holders along the way....
It doesn't cost him a thing to dilute. all just my frustated opinion....

Hey Jet, thanks for the numbers. I'm glad I asked because I thought they had more runway. February is upon us. How depressing. I'm in agreement there's more dilution coming and with our share price, it just gets uglier. A lot more shares given away. It was tongue in cheek when I mentioned reverse split a month or 2 ago. But it seems that has to be in play to regain some respectable share 'value'. Makes holding this so long (though the ups and downs, and way downs) that much more painful. There is light at the end of the tunnel, but none of us expected a tunnel this long. I actually wish as Striper suggested, they would merge with SK and 'corner the market'. This going it alone, David vs. Goliath thing has not proved to be effective. Patience and portfolio worth are wearing thin.

Yes and if we blame our attorneys wouldn't you also think that Hong sees it the same way?

Netlist's litigation expenses started to go down but now with all the appeals and retrials? It might start to go back up a little.

Back in mid-October when NLST had that stock offering that netted them $15M? They were having a cash burn of about $3M/month ($2.9M/month, according to figures at Yahoo Finance).

So, it's likely that $15M would be pretty much used up by February. Unless NLST decides to use other avenues of getting cash, I figure that we might hear of a new round of dilution pretty soon. The unknown thing is NLST's revenue. It might be going up markedly, with all the business that S.K Hynix is seeing. We'll have to wait on the financials to be published for that info.

The question really is whether they can convince anyone to take the risk. And the other thing is - with the present day share price? They will have to dilute at over twice the number of shares to get the same money. IF the CAFC comes through in time with favorable verdicts? That would be a definite plus. For myself, I am not expecting any CAFC verdicts until after this BOC case is decided.

So, in a nutshell? Yes. I expect further dilution.

this just gets more and more fun now doesnt it, i'll be dammed.......... any idea what this retrial is going to cost us??? then getting final judgement on it so we can move on with more swagger.......i hope we can afford that time frame before he gives suji anymore stock.

talking out loud for a moment...they should make a deal with sk or even merge with them and take the market over. then sk could just tell nvda and the others to get there stuff from nlst because it works.......

So Samscum bested us by waiting till they lost this case and then pointing out Juror 16 (which i agree, they most like knew about beforehand). They are certainly a master of delays. Delay seems to be the ongoing theme with everything involving our Netlist investment. If it was simply a matter of delay and a waiting game, I think we could deal with it. Lord knows we have for years already. Problem is every delay means time that Netlist can't afford, as cash flow is their biggest issue. Delays really mean dilution, which means my shares become worth less than they were when I bought them. (Which is clearly already the case).
Anyone have a sense of how long they can go before needing more cash and another round of dilution?
Do any of you believe we'll see any payments from litigation wins or settlements before more dilution is needed?

yes we will, just dont like wasting time.

Yes. I do blame Sheasby in this. It sure seems as though his firm should have caught the details in this juror's background and rejected her.

But we will go on from here and prevail.

we gave them that delay and they took it. i'd have to say there better at their job than sheasby because sheasby didnt catch it. their in business to delay, not defend, and they excel at it. no reason why we dont get the same out come again on the same evidence. i have no doubt sheasby can sell any jury our song because its true. he just needs to pay more attention to the details they will use to trip us up.

I completely agree with that logic.

The thing is, after the case is handed to the jury and during the deliberation phase, the judge cannot see how Juror 16 influenced the rest of the jurors. Was juror 16 persuasive enough to sway the opinion of the other jurors? You've got to know that that would be Samsung's argument. Scarsi had to err on the side of caution. If he had denied Samsung's motion for a retrial? Samsung would have appealed, and the appeals court would have surely directed Scarsi to conduct a new trial anyways. Scarsi saved Netlist a LOT of time by just agreeing to the retrial. If he had not, and just ignored the juror issue and gave a final verdict? Samsung would have waited 30 days and appealed (that's one month). Then the appeals court would have taken at least a year to hear the appeal and decide that a retrial was needed (that's at least 13 months). Then the retrial would have to be scheduled (another few months), so now the delay would have been 16-18 MONTHS for the retrial to take place.

If I sound like I am on Samsung's side in this? I do apologize and I tell you straight out that I am not. I am on Netlist's side. I think it's obvious that Samsung is a guilty as hell and wish the courts didn't have to provide Samsung all these opportunities to delay. But they do. It SUCKS. But eventually, I believe that NLST will win. The question is - will the patents still have any life left in them when they do? Netlist will get paid for any back use of the patents if they win the CAFC rulings. But the royalties going forward might very well be affected.

totally agree with you. but since the juror sat in on all the testimony and sat privately with the rest, scamsong could always say they could of been the reason the jury was unanimous. these lawyers are unethical and should be thrown in jail. yes they knew it the whole time and didnt tell the judge.

i pray!!!

theres plenty we could do about it but as long as our population remains complacent towards the way the system works we will all get screwed over somewhere somehow.

exactly, they wasted the courts time and gamed the system.

i am wrong, you are correct. their designated number has nothing to do with whether or not they were on the jury. but scamsung knew the juror was compromised and that was the juror they went and sold a bunch of shit too after the verdict. otherwise there would not of been any drama with the jury after it ended. scum lied again saying their bs team turned it up later while further investigating the jurors........ if that isnt gaming the system i dont know what else is.......the judge should be up their ass over not telling him.

There were six people who served on the jury in the BOC trial, and yes juror 16 was one of those seated on the jury. What I don't fully understand is that in a civil trial as a BOC dispute is you only need three-quarters of the jury to agree on a decision one way or the other. The jury was unanimous in their decision that Samsung violated the contract, and that Netlist had a legitimate right to cancel it. So, even if juror 16 was potentially in some way bias against Samsung the outcome would still have been the same. Samsung would have still been found guilty of breach of contract. Let's assume juror 16 was bias against Samsung and otherwise would have voted in Samsung's favor. Then we wouldn't have had a unanimous decision, but we would have had a five/one decision which is beyond the required threshold of the three quarters needed to have a final verdict. Netlist pointed this out in their filings and even gave previous case trial precedent for their position that a new trial should not be granted. But of course, we now know how this has played out. We can only hope Judge Scarci is only trying to err on the side of caution to maintain the fairness and impartiality of the judicial process. Yeah, I know this whole thing stinks!

Good fortune comes our way soon. 🔜 imho. 
Happy trading. 

All that could very well be true, and in fact probably is!

But the facts should be stated correctly. I do not believe that the juror in question was an "alternate" juror.

And you're right. It would not be surprising to learn that Samsung's atty's were very much aware of the juror in question's background and let the whole matter proceed. They knew they would lose the jury trial no matter what happened, and that a juror's tainted background would provide another avenue in which to cause further delay.

That has always been their aim...delay, delay, delay.

You can be sure that when they lose the retrial, they will appeal on the thirtieth day after the jury verdict and cause FURTHER delay.

Our legal system affords EVERY POSSIBLE avenue for the accused to get away with their crimes. That is the reality of this situation. It SUCKS, but there is little we can do about it.

Like was this person has to say...

That juror’s past was known to Omelveny and Myers. 200% certain.

Filthiest law firm in LA. Has been known as such for decades. also VERY well funded. They would have had a full background check and dossier on every prospective juror before they were ever questioned.

They choose NOT to bring up this jurors past so that they could later claim bias and get a delay and a new trial.

These people don’t make those kinda do mistakes at OM. Too well funded. Too deep in resources to have missed this. They used it. Played it like “a maneuver worthy of a Romulan” as I have stated before.

Too perfect to be a coincidence and too timely and way too overtly effective to be a “gift of fate”. Bullshit I call. Bullshit.

This was a master stroke strategy shed against a n opponent of far shallower pockets that absent the deep dive into the dumpster of skeletons in juror pasts? Could not have been found by NLST or their counsel on a budget

I do not believe that is correct. Juror 16 was accepted and was empaneled as a juror.

As I stated, the juror # he/she was assigned was arbitrary. He/she was definitely on the jury and had a vote in the outcome. If he/she was not on the jury that voted on the outcome of the case, then Samsung would have had no basis to ask for a retrial.

thats why its bs. juror 16 was never used so had no input in the live trial. to be able to get a new trial on that is bs. seeing the judge knows olmelvaney are one of the dirtiest firms in the country, hek the city of la even got into it with them for 75million because there dirty....... set the date, and if you dont show you lose by default..........

I'm not positive but I do not believe that juror 16 was an alternate juror.

I believe the way a jury is picked is from a "pool" of about 50 people called to serve. The jurors are assigned numbers and then go through the voir dire process. The judge and the attorney's for each litigant question the potential juror's in the pool. Then they decide which are acceptable. I do not know the exact number on the jury in these cases but I believe it is usually between 8 and 12. So juror #16 might have been assigned that number during the voir dire, but there aren't really that many juror's on the jury.

https://www.uscourts.gov/court-programs/jury-service/juror-selection-process

Being summoned for jury service does not mean that a person will end up serving on a jury. When a jury is needed for a trial, a group of qualified jurors who reported to court in response to the jury summons is taken to the courtroom where the trial will take place. The judge and attorneys ask the potential jurors questions, general or related to the specific case before them, to determine their suitability to serve on the jury. This process is called voir dire, which typically results in some prospective jurors being excused, based on their answers, from serving in that trial. The attorneys also may exclude a certain number of jurors without giving a reason.

ratatouille420
9:19 AM

$NLST I do not see how a retrial on the BOC because of a technical issue with an alternate juror has any bearing whatsoever on the ability of Samsung to try and stay, cancel, sever the verdicts and appeals process on any of the infringement cases and awards. Zero! Nada! Scarsi is within his power to say "Feb 11th it is. It is so ordered!!!" Also I would like to see the legal citation where an alternate juror that wasn't needed in the deliberations has the ability to wreck the trial after the fact........Anyone have the answer to that?
Bullish

A while ago, I presumed that things will start happening when the TPM is used, worldwide. We are still waiting for NLST to progress - we are still waiting for the TPM to be used. Is there a link here?

yup, its going to come down to when cafc speaks and do people listen. time will tell......

Round and round we go! Where we stop??? Who knows?

read it.......3 pages of bullshit......nlst wants to go to court.......scamsong doesnt..... read pg2 where scum says we shouldnt get an injunction cuz we got awarded a lump settlement. ok, then friggin pay us and lets move on. this is where a judge with balls is suppose to say, this is your court date, show up or forfeit by default. its that easy...........

Netlist Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (8:20-cv-00993)
District Court, C.D. California
648

Jan 8, 2025

Main Doc­ument

Response

https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/1259930/default.jpg
https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/1259944/default.jpg
https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/1259949/default.jpg

https://stocktwits.com/Durango24k/message/599374529

yes there the cause of our situation, but........ our problem isnt scum crap and goo......its the judicial system ponder that... take out the bureaucracy and your left with only one option. pay the man and dont let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.........next......

by the way, wouldnt you like to be represented by the law firm of, ''scum, crap, and goo'' the unlimited unliable corporation. the founders of litigation without consequences. imagine that, and its happening right in front of our very eyes. it really sucks when you can see a righteous victory and the unethical, immoral wall being allowed to dictate not only the length of the process, but more importantly causing the demise of a company as they profit from the action going forward. wheres the retribution??? 7 cents on a dollar is about what it comes to if we can get that rate!!! i could go on and probably will in the future as i'm sick of the way this is moving and i mean litigation wise. i think they figured out how to put a man on the moon in a shorter time frame than this bs has been going on............wheres the justice or are you getting an ice cream parlor built next to that ice skating rink they put up for you........ whats next..........a judicial country club on twenty five thousand acres just outside of pick your city...... sorry for the rant, hope for the best and put up with being pissed at the rest!!!

like i said, do your dam job. stop letting scamsong, micrap and google manipulate the judicial system, and most importantly. if all you judges cant see your being taken advantage of, then you dont deserve the position of administering justice. or is it you guys are so complacent with unethical legal proceedings you have adopted the guilty parties way of how you are to proceed. once guilt has been established, and it has. you then administer the penalty, and enforce the payment, its that simple.

TOMKiLA 6:37 AM NLST while we give away months and months to samsung for the boc trial and other stupid things, samsung is forecasting a 100% hbm growth in 2025. we can therefore say that from the damage of $122m in 2023 (for only 11 months covering almost all of 2022), the damage in 2025 for just two hbm patents should have risen to $1.2/1.5b. This is not a joke. we are giving away time and profits to our enemies while netlist must hope for something positive. A winning move is needed, a strategic victory is needed.

Probably royalties from 2023 to 2025 should be more than $1.5/2b only with HBM damages

$122m damages
2023: 0.6 x 2022 level = circa $190m damages
2024: 2.5/3x 2023 level = $450/500m damages
2025: 2x 2024 level = $900/1b damages

Wow! 900+ 450+ 200+ 100=1.650 damages for netlist with 2 HBM patents

https://stocktwits.com/TOMKiLA/message/599268012

Beutelschneider 4:58 AM $NLST If I have understood the legal situation correctly, Judge Scarsi will have to put an end to the games and set a date without further discussion. This will then perhaps show whether he will do his colleagues from his old office another favor or prevent further delays.

NLST samsung’s strategy remains blatantly obvious and harmful. They aim to delay proceedings, and if successful, use these delays as leverage to seek stays in other cases. It is evident that Samsung seeks to avoid court rulings or resolutions altogether. Courts and judges should recognize this pattern. I am confident that Judge Gilstrap, as well as Judge Scarsi, are aware of this behavior. However, whether they have the courage and legal latitude to resolve the pending issues promptly in the interest of justice (and not merely the letter of the law) remains to be seen. Soon we should know.

Stokd Yesterday 11:37 PM $NLST This filed by Netlist in the TX/Gilstrap case — MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF SAMSUNG’S SUR-REPLY TO NETLIST’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND THEN A SUBSEQUENT PERMANENT INJUNCTION — contains some dirty stuff Samsung is trying to pull, thanks to how the BOC/Scarsi case played out…of course.

The interplay and how Samsung uses the BOC case to maneuver and manipulate the infringement cases should hopefully be clear to Gilstrap, who will stay on course and in line with previous decisions on the matter. Almost laughable how blatant it is!

Samsung doesn't ever want BOC to conclude, which essentially means losing the only claim against willful infringement they can throw around, implying innocence and tying up all other cases and appeals--as they just tried tonight. Scarsi better issue the quickest final judgment after we win the retrial, in the likes of Gilstrap after recent trial...it can be done, and let's move on!

Link to full doc--
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.216364/gov.uscourts.txed.216364.889.0.pdf

NLST In Texas Samsung #293 case.................
PLAINTIFF NETLIST, INC.’S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF SAMSUNG’S SUR-REPLY TO NETLIST’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ANDTHEN A SUBSEQUENT PERMANENT INJUNCTION (DKT. 887)
😋This is a proposed motion. NOT SIGNED by Gilstrap yet!
4 more pages in comments section
https://stocktwits.com/Durango24k/message/599252807

NLST • The court previously granted Samsung’s request for a new trial, so the two companies need to agree on a trial date.
• Netlist (the plaintiff) proposed four potential trial dates starting as early as February 11, 2025.
• Samsung (the defendant) is resisting that date and has instead made legal maneuvers to delay the trial.

Netlist’s Concerns

• S has refused to agree to the February 11 trial date, citing vague and inconsistent reasons, such as the unavailability of certain witnesses or attorneys.
• N believes S is using these delays as a strategy to gain a legal advantage in other related cases.
• S has not confirmed if its witnesses will be available for any proposed trial dates.
• N has ensured that its witnesses will be available.
• S initially said one witness was unavailable but provided no clear explanation.
• Later, S mentioned a partner recovering from eye surgery and then claimed they were switching to a new lead attorney who needs more time to prepare.

https://stocktwits.com/mrbiggumsworth/message/599241864

Stokd
Yesterday 5:54 PM

$NLST Here is — NETLIST’S STATEMENT REGARDING PROPOSED TRIAL DATES — which is worth a read and contains some interesting things/points.

Like the fact that Netlist is serious about trying to reach a settlement — "Netlist also communicated with the mediator who has been jointly agreed to by the parties, Hon. (Ret.) David Folsom and requested that he conduct a follow-on mediation. Netlist also made a REVISED SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL. No follow-on mediation has been agreed to by Samsung."

More games — "Samsung claims that it is not available the week of February 11, 2025, but it initially declined to explain why. Since then, its explanation keeps changing. Samsung first stated that one of its witnesses, Hyun Ki Ji, is not available, but has refused to explain what that unavailability is and why it cannot be accommodated, for example by live video testimony. After being pressed on this issue, Samsung then changed tactics..."

Link to full doc below, 1st pg pictured.
storage.courtlistener.com/r...
Bullish

i've had a bad day. between the snow, the kitchen, and my back, there's just too much bullshit going around. i'm sick of the excuses these assholes come up with, and their not even consistent except for the fact that they always have excuses!!! when does a judge finally grow some balls and put them in their place. the more i read these filings the more i see who tells who how its not going to get done.

lol!!! yes...we stole the tec.....yes...we made huge money... and how dare you even try to get us in a court room to put us on trial..... and you call that justice??? oh we can have a delay because you were condescending towards us forcing us to go to court by april fools day.........lets try for a fourth trial on the 993 cuz 3 times isnt enough.........etc etc etc.......... i hope some one reads this thats involved with system since the word is they do..........alls i got to say is if you got the time to read my bs your not doing your job!!!

I don't believe the judge wants to waste time on the trial until ALL the patents have come to a conclusion. The 314 patent is in the hands of the CAFC (PTAB decision for netlist being appealed by Micron) and I don't believe the judge will lift the stay until that has been decided.

I don't agree with the judge. At least TWO patents HAVE been decided.

If they held a trial and the jury awarded Netlist awards on all three patents? Then Micron would immediately pay on at least TWO patents.

The judge might also be waiting on the California BOC decision on the retrial. So much seems to be riding on whether or not Samsung had the right to sell Netlist products under the JDLA contract. If somehow the BOC goes AGAINST Netlist (doubtful but), and all the product that Micron had might have been connected to Samsung....and included in the JDLA?

Very confusing how those two companies are meshed together in this.

your right, i wonder whats holding it up then??? too much bs involved. if its ready to go a date should be set.

Case 8:20-cv-00993-MCS-ADS Document 647 Filed 01/07/25

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.783923/gov.uscourts.cacd.783923.647.0.pdf

Netlists answer!

Samsung has filed a raft of motions to stay and vacate in the Eastern District of Texas and the Federal Circuit based on the need for a retrial. Samsung has refused to agree to a February 11 date, and by doing so it is gaining a dramatic strategic advantage with its motions to stay and vacate.

It also has refused to delay its motions to stay and vacate if Netlist withdraws its request to proceed on February 11. Of particular concern in selecting dates, despite multiple requests, Samsung has also refused to confirm that the witnesses who it called last trial, who were also subpoenaed by Netlist, and who are now subject to this Court’s jurisdiction having voluntarily appeared, are available on any of the dates that either Netlist or Samsung have proposed.

In contrast, Netlist confirmed in writing that all of the witnesses it called live at the last trial are available.
Samsung claims that it is not available the week of February 11, 2025, but it initially declined to explain why.

Case 8:20-cv-00993-MCS-ADS Document 646 Filed 01/07/25

Hahahaha! So know we know why it was sort of delayed!

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.783923/gov.uscourts.cacd.783923.646.0.pdf

Pursuant to the Court’s December 26, 2024 Order re: Post Trial Motions
(ECF No. 640), the parties were directed “to meet and confer and file a joint
statement by January 7, 2025, proposing dates for a jury trial to begin no later than
April 1, 2025.”

In accordance with that Order, the parties have met and conferred
in an effort to submit a joint statement of proposed trial dates. Despite Samsung’s
best efforts, Netlist has refused to cooperate on the preparation of a joint statement.
Samsung is, therefore, forced to submit this unilateral statement identifying March 18,
March 25 and April 1 as proposed trial dates.



I'll bet a filing by Netlist will be filed soon, with THEIR version of the difficulties with Samsung.

Looks like the lawyers from these two companies could be sitting side by side in front of Big Ben and not agree on the time of day!

Netlist wanted to include Feb 11th in the trial dates. Samsung said they had problems with that date.
Obviously, Samsung wants to delay any trial as much as they can. So, they want dates as close to the April 1st deadline as possible! They even INCLUDED April 1st!

Unreal.

You do know what/who we're dealing with here! When have expectations ever been met with this beloved investment of ours.

I'm a little surprised that we haven't seen the joint document requesting a date for the new trial yet. The judge said the 7th was the date it had to be filed by. I guess technically they have until midnight but.....I'd have expected the filing by the 4 PM.

Netlist already asked the judge in that case to remove the stay and move the case to the ED of TX under Gilstrap's rule.

He refused BOTH requests.

I don't believe that Sheasby can "demand" anything. He can only ask the court. He did.

I do not think that another request to lift the stay would be well received by the judge.

TOMKiLA NLST which between micron, samsung and google is the most vulnerable? obviously micron and that's why i've been repeating for months that netlist
should focus on closing this case.
micron has more than $10b of debt, similar products both dram and nand and above all it doesn't have all the influence of samsung and google.

micron could currently go to trial and seriously lose because 3 winning lrdimms have been confirmed valid by the ptab. i've been wondering for too many months why netlist doesn't demand to remove the stay on that texas case and then obtain damages and above all injunctions that would be LETHAL for micron. Only in this way i see a potential definitive and positive agreement between the two companies. samsung has always found a way to hinder netlist and the progress of things but today's strategy is not clear where it is leading. micron has already lost, what the hell are they waiting for to checkmate?

WE NEED TO WIN SOON

https://stocktwits.com/TOMKiLA/message/599193465

NLST New Document from Delaware court below is link to court listener this one is free pick on blue icon.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc.
Notice - Other — Document #227
District Court, D. Delaware
Docket Number: 1:21-cv-01453

Citation: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc., 1:21-cv-01453, (D. Del. Jan 07, 2025) ECF No. 227

Date Filed: January 7th, 2025, 1:04 p.m. EST

Uploaded: January 7th, 2025

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60649248/227/samsung-electronics-co-ltd-v-netlist-inc/