Totally agree, Zydor, although you are perhaps stating the obvious. Or have you seen some attempt somewhere to hype the stock?
I saw that after the initial stock sale at 0.5p to a director (50% above the price last traded on AIM), there were no takers for a couple of optimists in the last auction who offered small amounts at 2p and 4p.
Share Sales for DDD Group are now every 3 months via one outlet. That means "normal" Market Dynamics will not come into play in the same way as Stock Market Traded Shares, nor do they respond to Hype. The price will only move as a result of the last matched bargin. (every 3 months), and for a long while, the "price" will bare no relation to future Market Possibilities in anything like a timely manner, only to the last purchase and there will be few of those.
By in large Traders have now got out, leaving holders for a genuine long term. If the Court Case against LG succeeds, all bets are off, and the price anyone will be asked to pay will jump massively. Other than that, existing Holders need to batten down the hatches for the Long Run, or get out at a loss - thats if anyone will buy them in the Quarterly Market, because they will now not respond to Market Hype, only to reality after the fact.
In the latter case, no one will sell if the Case succeeds unless they are demented or need the cash, and if it doesnt succeed, they will in effect be worthless for a year or two at least. I personally think DDD Group are a good Company and worth holding long term; but no-one should even dream of short term share movements unless the Court Case succeeds.
Shares will only trade on a Matched basis, not in response to Hype.
Further research reveals that there is no commercial tie-in with Apple. But should the iPhone 7 be using any GenMe proprietary tech in their yet-to-be shipped camera software, DDD would go to war again.
At least the offering of a background blur feature by Apple validates the market need and should benefit GenMe.
Unless there's an out-of-court settlement (the odds on which have shortened with the judge's interim ruling), I doubt the main case will be heard this year. But why it should matter to Apple, I don't know.
While it's unlikely that Apple has bought into DDD's SmartCam tech, if they had done so they would certainly have slapped an NDA on DDD at least until the new iPhone software shipped. And that would have put a publicly listed company in a regulatory quandary...
Aye, for sure, because SmartCam et al is not in the Frame for the Court Case. The Court Case does however have a Major Impact on DDD, and Apple are not going near DDD until this gets resolved, they are in no rush - else they would have bought into SmartCam already.(thats if its their intent).
Hopefully the Court Case gets sorted out in the next few weeks, and clears the decks, as the saying goes.
"[Apple] said software would be able to automatically pick people's faces out from the background, keeping the humans in focus while blurring the rest of the shot in order to enhance the portraits." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37277965
"The TriDef SmartCam software will also include the new TriDef SmartBlur feature that provides additional privacy on video conference calls. As video conferencing cameras and large screen UHD/4K displays used by business users continue to increase in resolution, some users are seeking a solution that prevents sensitive information on monitors, whiteboards and elsewhere in the room being visible to the conference call participants. Instead of replacing the background, the SmartBlur feature blurs it while keeping the conference call participant in clear focus, providing additional privacy and security." http://dddgroupplc.com/2016/07/tridef-smartcam-affiliate-agreement-with-leading-it-component-and-peripheral-supplier/
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Case No. CV 15-5578-GW(Ex) August 30, 2016
Dynamic Digital Depth Research PTY LTD. v. LG Electronics, Inc., et al.
Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) – RULING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S JUNE 14 SUPPLEMENTAL INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS 
In this patent infringement action, Plaintiff Dynamic Digital Depth Research PTY LTD (“DDD” or “Plaintiff”) accuses Defendants LG Electronics, Inc. and LG Electronics USA, Inc. (“LGE” or “Defendants”) of infringing three patents relating to image conversion techniques. Before the Court is a renewed motion by Defendants to strike Plaintiff’s supplemental infringement contentions for failure to provide sufficient disclosures of its infringement theories as required under Patent Local Rule 3-1 of the Northern District of California (“Motion”). For the following reasons, the Court would DENY the Motion. [Snip] On balance, the Court finds that DDD has provided reasonable notice to LGE as to why it believes it has a reasonable chance of proving infringement concerning the accused products containing MediaTek and MStar chips. The rules do not require the disclosure of specific evidence nor do they require a plaintiff to prove its infringement case. See Avago Technologies, Inc. v. IPtronics Inc., No. 5:10-cv-2863, 2015 WL 464923, at * (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2015) (“[Plaintiff’s] burden at this stage does not mean that [it] must prove it is right.”). To carry its burden on infringement, Plaintiff will presumably need more information, like source code, to confirm that the operation of the MediaTek and MStar chips falls within the scope of the asserted claims. But that should not have a significant effect on claim construction proceedings, or any other court-mandated deadlines before the close of discovery. Whether Plaintiff may supplement its infringement contentions concerning the MediaTek and MStar chips and whether it can do so before the discovery cutoff remains to be determined. But that is a different inquiry than whether Plaintiff has provided sufficient notice of its infringement theories at this stage. It bears noting that in view of DDD’s admission that the claim charts articulate a singular infringement theory that applies to all accused components, Dkt. 121 at 13, the Court would expect DDD to adhere to its representations for the remainder of this action. In the interest of fairness, DDD would not be permitted to deviate substantially from that theory without first providing compelling reasons that explain why it changed course and why it wasn’t able to anticipate such a change. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court would DENY Defendants’ Motion.
Datafeed and UK data supplied by NBTrader and Digital Look.
While London South East do their best to maintain the high quality of the information displayed on this site,
we cannot be held responsible for any loss due to incorrect information found here. All information is provided free of charge, 'as-is', and you use it at your own risk.
The contents of all 'Chat' messages should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Limited, or its affiliates.
London South East does not authorise or approve this content, and reserves the right to remove items at its discretion.