Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Quote  |  Bullboard  |  News  |  Opinion  |  Profile  |  Peers  |  Filings  |  Financials  |  Options  |  Price History  |  Ratios  |  Ownership  |  Insiders  |  Valuation

01 Communique Laboratory Inc V.ONE

Alternate Symbol(s):  OONEF

01 Communique Laboratory Inc. is a Canada-based enterprise level cybersecurity provider. The Company has two business units. Its primary focus is on its cyber security business unit focusing on post-quantum cybersecurity with the development and commercialization of its IronCAP technology. IronCAP patent protected cryptographic system is an advanced Goppa code-based post-quantum cryptographic technology that can be implemented on classical computer systems. The Company’s other business unit consists of its remote access business which provides its customers with a suite of secure remote access services and products under its I’m InTouch and I’m OnCall product offerings. Its IronCAP Toolkits are available to vendors and can be used by vendors to build secure post-quantum systems for blockchain, 5G/IoT, data storage, encryption, digital signing and comply with the PKCS#11, OpenSSL and OpenPGP standards. Its IronCAP X is a cybersecurity product for email/file encryption.


TSXV:ONE - Post by User

Comment by rodanion Mar 26, 2013 10:17pm
314 Views
Post# 21172162

RE: RE: q

RE: RE: q

That may be so Sangeth, but I assume B. & H  hammered this point for all its worth so it is not as if the jury was not given the opportunity to agree that its hands were tied by reason of the  CAFC  construction.

If it were that clear cut, Hilton should have instructed the jury that it was not open to them to decide inconsistent with the prior binding decision and therefore given what would amount to a directed verdict on that point. It may well be that this was the subject of the Rule 52 motion and Hilton's dismissal of this could be grounds of appeal

I suspect, however, that LOGM's attorneys were adept in muddying the waters so far as the factual  parameters were concerned and thus were successful in distinguishing the CAFC decision.If that is the case, I am afraid to say that it would make an appeal very hard to win as it is extremely hard to to overturn jury verdicts predicated on their preference for one party's factual assertions over the other's.

However given the limited information we have about what transpired at the trial, all our theories must be viewed as being pure speculation.

 

 

 

 

 

Bullboard Posts