Member Info for BobsSocks

This is another common meme amongst the fantasists over on ADVFN.

https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/the-end-of-facebook/

It's dead Jim.

You should also pay attention to that P word and its impact on a company like Talking Medicines who, as far as I am aware, have retreated to the US to pedal their wares and once again this is touted by the rabid mob as being a good thing.

It isn't.

https://twitter.com/Foxglovelegal/status/1597892966135533573

Link may not work but it is the Q3/22 Interim report from Wyld,

https://mb.cision.com/Main/20640/3674689/1703180.pdf

Quoting from Page 13)

"Included in Other external costs in the quarter were
significant legal costs for the *registering* of patents in
major jurisdictions including USA."

The word or words should be *filing patent applications*. Presumably registering is used to pretend that these are already granted whereas they are not.

Furthermore we know that Wyld has chosen to go via the PCT route and as such their initial costs are markedly reduced,

https://www.inventioncity.com/ask-mike/how-much-does-it-cost-for-international-patents

"If you already have a complete patent application with claims, filing a PCT application will cost approximately $4000. The PCT application enables you to preserve your right to file international patent applications in any of 150 countries (Taiwan is a notable exception) for a couple of years."

We also know that they have made the required declaration under the PCT for entry into the USPTO,

https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/docs2/iasr/WO2021160867/pdf/zGuNz3R5eh1mhATCRaP-aKBEOtmEIQea4livzKV72brAs74KfES7jLJ6PcmnOee7_bEMU2nWagsqcywvHgSisLW8TOPE9EdVIbWs36XVkSaNumqllF3BQD2GsyB4YrL7

"Declaration of inventorship (Rules 4.17(iv) and 51bis.1(a)(iv)) for the purposes of the designation of the United States of America."

We also know how far they have proceeded in terms of the National Phase,

https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2021160867&tab=PCTDOCUMENTS

Click on the National Phase Tab.

There are entries, outside of the EU, for Canada and Brasil and yet they claim above that they have *registered* in the US and this is a source of major cost to them. This is flim flam.

Given it was from a company blog you might find this works better in terms of getting it past an LSE competitor filter.

No guarantees but...

https://www.ternplc.com/blog/how-the-iot-is-changing-hr

Of course being me and being a bit concerned about privacy I think Mr Leith should take a big step back from the use of IOT to spy on employees because if he is not careful then certainly within the EU the regulatory authorities will take a massive dump on him.

... and implied but hollow manners. The usual lackey or similar shorting taints are all par for the course. No matter.

As I have suggested and as you have demonstrated Tern does not hold a realistic controlling interest in its portfolio companies and I would still question their continuing influence and influence going forward.

Tern will not be a target however you should be concerned that Tern may be squeezed when one of the portfolio companies, should it happen, does become a target and how that scenario is developed.

For the moment no doubt the most exciting prospect is Wyld but whilst they talk about pilots and pre-orders and, of course, the prospect of massive growth I would still be inclined to exercise a degree of caution in the run up to the launch and indeed some months afterwards.

Wait for the, meaningful, metrics.

"It's no surprise that there are interested parties eyeing up Tern as a cheap means of acquiring significant stakes, given it holds at least two and possibly 3 unicorns."

And your evidence for this would be? Oh yes, a big fat nothing.

At best you have Sisto suggesting that the portfolio companies often receive offers about which he can give you no details other than they are supposedly, obviously, not enough. Note that these are offers for the portfolio companies and not Tern. And that's it. The rest is your daydreaming speculative ramping.

Someone buying out Tern would be like Tern trying to buy out Pires. Why collect a part share with no overall control in a bunch of companies when you could target a specific company with the possibility of overall control? In case you failed to notice Tern, and others, have relinquished all charges over the portfolio companies leaving them in a much freer state and control of their own destinies.

Still, don't let such things get in the way of you posting drool in an effort to recover your losses.

As an aside and as already mentioned some time ago the European Application was derived, claimed priority, from an American Application. [please read the note at the end].

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search/family/042799596/publication/EP2268071A1?q=pn%3DEP2268071

AKA US2010325703A1

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search/family/042799596/publication/US2010325703A1?q=pn%3DEP2268071

AKA US81341210

https://register.epo.org/ipfwretrieve?apn=US.81341210.A&lng=en

Which is not mentioned on the Device Authority website because they failed to take it through to grant.
It is not listed on the Device Authority website,

https://www.deviceauthority.com/patents/

Note: This is not to say that Device Authority do not have a possibly similar patent granted in the US that does cover what I have suggested as being legacy devices,

8438394 – DEVICE-BOUND CERTIFICATE AUTHENTICATION

Looks like a possible candidate but a general revision of the filing suggest it is not purposefully directed at legacy IOT devices in the manner that the EP application was. Again in terms of legacy devices the "use us or do nothing" claim rings hollow if it were to be considered as a threat of action due to patent protection. There is little to none available.

It's the usual ploy by our friendly non-publisher of complete information. Link to nothing and claim it is easy to find or link to something cherry picked that seems to support your argument but leave out any deeper details then get found out and called for it .

GB case file here,

https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/PublicationNumber/EP2268071

Documents here,

https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/PublicationNumber/EP2268071/Documents

Document with request for restoration and reasons here,

https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Document/ApplicationNumber/EP10165950.6/1566c2dc-093f-4668-b19b-e5a5321c2555/EP2268071-20170131-Letter%20%20Agentapplicant.pdf

Basically their US patent agent fell over and they had to scrabble about to get rights restored. As G.Rees point out they only succeeded in the UK. The rest got blown up.

Ah yes.

Here we see the twisted obnoxious shallow little scummy mind of the low level ramper once again trying to mislead with incomplete information with a cut and paste and no substantive link to the source.

The cut and paste from...

https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP10165950&lng=en&tab=main

Which usefully misses out...

Well go look for yourself.

No doubt it will be demanding an apology for being shown up to be an idiot.

"Once again I should state that I do not doubt that DA can do this stuff but any effort from themselves or low level rampers to claim that they own the space is just disingenuous."

I should also say that whilst they can do it in my view their overall patent portfolio is similarly worthless.

A bit slow off the mark there in terms of pumping their wares. Very fast on the US/Biden side but on the EU side...

https://www.brighttalk.com/webcast/17202/567247

Nov 22 2022, 2:49pm UTC

"In this episode of the Device Authority podcast, Paul Lockley and Robert Dobson discuss the European Cyber Resilience Act, who it affects and the implications on the IoT industry."

I'll take that as an admission from DA that they have no Intellectual Property of any worth in Europe.

Of course the known ones on the Still Ramping thread will not mention that DA has little to no protection for their legacy equipment patent in the EU.

https://www.deviceauthority.com/patents/

EU Patents
EP2268071 – SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SECURED COMMUNICATIONS BY EMBEDDED PLATFORMS

https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP10165950&lng=en&tab=legal

Look at the lapses on that one.

Neither will they accept that the famous "Use us or do nothing" words relate to that patent and were practically worthless at the time they were uttered and become more worthless as the World moves off legacy equipment.

Once again I should state that I do not doubt that DA can do this stuff but any effort from themselves or low level rampers to claim that they own the space is just disingenuous.

http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2022/11/the-cyber-resilience-act-in-context-of.html

https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP21709349&lng=en&tab=event

18.11.2022 Request for examination filed published on  21.12.2022 [2022/51]

It is possible that the last request from the examining division for payment in respect of claims 16-21 has been fulfilled and they are now moving forward. It may also or hopefully is the case that Wyld have made some amendments to overcome the last series of objections. However as per the above publication date, 21st December, we will not get to see those changes until or after that date. EPO seems to run to a three month cycle between request for examination and publication of the decision so sometime end of February or beginning of March next year.

Maarleck

"As I do every day, I constantly get the real buy/sell prices by executing dummy trades, they are very revealing as to the true picture of how the share is moving. Over the last few days there’s been lots of play to manipulate the price. I believe a big buy was put on just before close on Friday."

Because some identifiable idiot making dummy trades is not going to earn a reputation for being an idiot and therefore be offered dummy prices.

"Yo! Idiot back offering to buy 3 Million for 20p."
"Offer him 12 Million at 18p."
"Oh now he wants to sell 10,000 at 12p."
"Tell him to do one and wait for the Market Manipulation post on ADVFN."
"Every freaking time :-)"

https://twitter.com/LeaKissner/status/1592937764684980224

Device Authority is The Solution!

Then again perhaps not. He might rip holes.

That's a nice sponsored advert for Arm written by Arm

According to the general wisdom on this board you should not link to such stuff unless DA or Wyld now own them or are about to be bought up by them.

Seriously if people are going to cut and post wibble without providing a source then all they are doing is posting wibble and given the number of times that that wibble has been doctored by added ramp with no delineation between the source and the added ramp I will classify it as being made up wibble.

Screaming for an apology for your own persistent mistakes does not earn you one and, although I am also prone to rubbish analogies, your title misses your point. Try,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog

Then try to put a bit of extra thought into what you think you are trying to say here because it is all to often the case that people such as yourself who claim false injury are in fact those who who are inflicting the injury and wish to deflect. It is in Chapter Four of your well thumbed Penguin Book of Troll and you will also find a reference in the Bible.

In case you missed it I admitted I was wrong by publishing the link you forgot

That's almost 10 hours you and others have spent copying and pasting web pages when you could have just published a link.

Thank you for your insight.

However,

Would it be so hard to ask you to something useful like this in the future,

https://www.deviceauthority.com/blog/this-aint-no-ordinary-product-release/

In case you hadn't noticed that is part of how the Internet works.

"Unless kkrriiss wishes to rock up with a link to a statement from Device Authority or *copy of an e-mail* that confirms"

Wardy333 over on ADVFN appears to have stepped up to the plate,

"From the e-mail sent this afternoon..."

Presumably the e-mail included a disclaimer along the lines of,

"The content of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient specified in message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this message with any third party, without the written consent of the sender. If you received this message by mistake, please reply to this message and follow with its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the future.

Kind regards,

Device Authority"

So, why did Wardy333, kkrriiss and Stentorian choose to ignore that disclaimer and blab the contents or, if the disclaimer was not there, why did Device Authority chose to restrict [semi] public access to,

https://www.deviceauthority.com/news/keyscaler-70-release-iot/
https://www.deviceauthority.com/insights/keyscaler-7-0/

but send a "we now own all the things" e-mail to what are presumably known shareholders so they could blab the news to others who are not in such a position?

Smells like poo to me.

For peons...

https://www.deviceauthority.com/news/keyscaler-70-release-iot/

Notice how the text does not match that quoted by kkrriiss?

Presumably if you go to,

https://www.deviceauthority.com/insights/keyscaler-7-0/

You can download the marketing blurb quoted by kkrriiss and see that it does in fact make those claims. Of course you do have to give over all your details so DA can phone you back and sell you stuff.

I have no idea why a company would wish to do this. Maybe they could just publish full information about their most excellent product rather than trying to generate sales leads.

Naturally I am intrigued because kkrriiss, as a member of the Still Waiting fan club over on ADVFN, along with others are prone to making up rubbish and then adding their own rubbish to it so things sound better.

So I signed up for the download. The download bears no resemblance to the text ?quoted? by kkrriiss so we will have to assume that once again kkrriiss is making up their own version of what Device Authority is really saying in order to ramp the share.

The e-mail provided to download the associated file came with a disclaimer,

"The content of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient specified in message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this message with any third party, without the written consent of the sender. If you received this message by mistake, please reply to this message and follow with its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the future.

Kind regards,

Device Authority"

I will not link to the document itself but would be happy to argue the disclaimer in court.

https://www.weblaw.co.uk/articles/legal-position-of-email-disclaimers/

Unless kkrriiss wishes to rock up with a link to a statement from Device Authority or copy of an e-mail that confirms that they have made a statement that includes words with such an intended meaning I would suggest that kkrriiss and the others who regularly publish such meaningless doctored quotes try to shut up.

May I also suggest that both Tern and Device Authority try to gain some control over these misleading idiots.

Thanks