Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Let's hope that by vigorous/aggressive they mean to counter-sue. As much as you'd want them to use the cash to improve shareholder value, they need to put their money where their mouth is and go on the offensive with Uber - for reputations sake. Even to expedite the whole legal process by pushing Uber to drop it because (without being a legal expert) I'd be worried it'd be a long drawn out process given the number of defendants. Their revenue exposure to Uber is immaterial, so perhaps they'll just defend.
As in potentially game-ending? No not that I can recall. Uber could have easily been game-ending from face-value. I don't share your overblown doomsday scenarios stt. I have read numerous numbers of your comments, the use of capitals to highlight words out of context smells of desperation (not to mention the repeated posts). With a peppering of understandable critism which I can agree with, however. The mark of a compromised view of things in my mind is holding an unbalanced view, not conceding areas where the alternative view maybe better than yours, which it inevitably will be at times. You have consistently viewed now Taptica negatively, which lately, would be moreso correct I'll give you that.
And to your second, maybe. I've finally had the impetus to go through the process of setting up an account here...so can't say for sure
I won't filter u out stt, as much as you are a pain to read sometimes you serve your purpose as a devil's advocate in my mind.
Brassneck and JAdam - brilliant posts.
Yes, I am a shareholder. Bought it in after declining revenues from Edelman report had stopped I believe.
In terms of reputational damage yes, reputation is everything in industry under heavy scrutiny for fraud. My initial reaction to it forced me out of the woodwork after that dreadful RNS, since then I've calmed down... believe what u want, it is the truth
FYI John Rosier also writes for the Investor Chonicle (published by the Financial Times)
Given all the accusations of multiple ids flying about, you may not believe me but...I've been a silent reader of this board alongside advfn for a while, and only just now have started to post solely due to the Uber law suit. It genuinely worried me (seemed like Edelman again) evidently like a lot of people so I couldn't help myself
Anyone at the AGM share any details pretty please?
I agree Safi, Tremor/Yume will be and is the inevitable cash cow (this is the main reason for my continued hope). Calling them forward with delivering bad news is too generous in my mind, they have been vague to the point the only thing that could make you view it negatively/positively is waking up on the wrong/right side of bed.
Changing the name just after being accused of fraud related activities would seem damning to any potential client in my mind (if they bother to notice that is).
Uber does not have a saintly record, far from it. Uber don't actually know the names of the 100 other 'John Doe' companies. I agree it seems quite speculative on their part. Why is it they only seem to name the largest companies in the suit (convenient no?), surely TUNE should have revealed the other culprits as I assume ALL the transparency reports went through TUNE. Seems like they rushed the complaint (less docked legal hours than be thorough). Throw poo at wall and see what sticks. I'm not a legal expert, but there is definitely some similarities with the response Fetch gave.
Hi, yes since Blinkx unfortunately (after Edelman).
My general take on the law suit:
I've read the legal complaint and it seems from first look that if Taptica are guilty of anything, it is quite small relative to the other listed companies (this is mainly going by the examples Uber highlight). Of course any way you look at it, there will inevitably be some reputational damage. I have a slight inclination towards the idea Taptica have been thrown into the mix just to blame them for the breitbart ('alt-right' website) adverts that the public informed them of; and recoup an image of a "progressive" company that doesn't associate itself with "right-wing groups" (you'll know this rhetoric if you follow the media especially in the US). This was one of the main points for Uber in the law suit with Fetch which they 'volunatrily' dropped after Fetch counter-sued...
At the very least, it's a side-objective
Fetch response to Uber's law suit
'We are shocked by Uber’s allegations which are unsubstantiated, completely without merit, and purposefully inflammatory so as to draw attention away from Uber’s unprofessional behaviour and failure to pay suppliers. Fetch terminated its agreement with Uber months ago after Uber stopped paying invoices for services provided by over fifty small business suppliers, engaged by Fetch to place Uber’s mobile advertising. Following months of non payment, Uber eventually raised unsubstantiated claims relating to ad-fraud as a reason not to pay its invoices, but there is no basis to these claims ...
We vigorously deny the allegations from Uber and will be responding robustly to ensure we set the record straight.'
https://gizmodo.com/uber-claims-company-put-bogus-ads-on-breitbart-in-indus-1818583776
Correction: Sept 2018
I have heard that the Taptica Uber story is in todays Evening Standard. Anyone coming home from work on the London tube will see it. Let's hope all those business figures that matter are too pretentious to take public transport.
It might be worth finding the Fetch Uber law suit, I think one of the latest documents summarises the defence of Fetch, one of the points seemingly blaming the suppliers (impetus of the law suit on Taptica?)
YouAppi is 5th and 13th respectivey on Pixalates (fraud management company) seller trust index for video for September 2014