Register
Login:
Share:
Email Facebook Twitter


Share Views Episode 9 - Early Stage Investment Opportunities


DDD Group PLC Share Chat (DDD)


DDD Share Chat
DDD Share Chat
DDD Level 2 Console
DDD Level 2 Console
DDD Live Share Price
DDD Live Share Price
Buy DDD Shares
Buy DDD Shares
Add DDD to Watchlist
Add DDD to Watchlist
Add DDD to Alert
Add DDD to Alert
Close Info Alerts is a Premium Feature
Login or start your FREE trial today.
Add DDD to myTerminal
Add DDD to myTerminal

DDD Group PLC shares appear to be de-listed or suspended.


Share Discussion for DDD Group PLC


Thread View

Please login or register to post a message on Share Chat.

Posts per page:


shylock
Posts: 4,637
Observation
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.00
RE: Shares illLiquid
22 Sep '16
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.
 
Zydor
Posts: 74
Off Topic
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.00
Shares illLiquid
21 Sep '16
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.
shylock
Posts: 4,637
Answer
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.00
RE: iPhone 7
13 Sep '16
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.
shylock
Posts: 4,637
Observation
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.00
RE: iPhone 7
12 Sep '16
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...
Zydor
Posts: 74
Off Topic
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.00
RE: iPhone 7
12 Sep '16
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.
shylock
Posts: 4,637
Observation
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.00
RE: iPhone 7
10 Sep '16
The LG court case is about 3D - and DDD isn't on trial. So nothing to stop SmartCam/SmartBlur being sold to Apple et al.
Zydor
Posts: 74
Observation
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.00
RE: iPhone 7
8 Sep '16
Hmmmm indeed :)

Well spotted - I had a peek ..... that article goes on to report :

"The feature will not, however, be available at launch but will rather be provided as an update later on."

No question ..... "2+2 could equal 5" (as the saying goes) with this one......

...... but, if it was ..... then Apple couldn't use it until the current DDD Case clear's Court.

Speculation ?? - that's for sure, no question - but its definitely worth a "Hmmmmmm" ..... :)
shylock
Posts: 4,637
Research
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.00
iPhone 7
8 Sep '16
"[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

Hmmm...

"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/
rickojohn
Posts: 45
Off Topic
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.00
RE: Court ruling
7 Sep '16
Good spot shylock. Further encouragement!
shylock
Posts: 4,637
Research
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.00
Court ruling
2 Sep '16
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 [122]

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.




Share Price, Share Chat, Stock Market news at lse.co.uk
FREE Member Services
- Setup a personalised Watchlist and Virtual Portfolio.
- Gain access to LIVE real-time Regulatory News (RNS).
- View more Trades, Directors' Deals, and Broker Ratings.
Share Price, Share Chat, Stock Market news at lse.co.uk






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.