after scanning the posts earlier today...

1. .135(1) I believe indicates a MM covering a short position. I have noticed on some Nasdaq stocks when trades go through for X.XX99, the shares were sold 'short', (borrowed from another, so a MM made a .0001 to arrange for 'locating' or 'lending' shares) and when a trade goes through for X.XX01, the shares were 'bought to cover'. I believe that is what happens when we see that here as well.

2. I'd be willing to bet that there was at least one MM who paid an attorney to sit and watch the 'conclusion' of the trial today to offer an opinion on the odds of the court to rule in our favor, and to offer an opinion based on observing the case as to how long and whether an appeal is likely to succed (if one is likely at all). After seeing the bid go up today, well.... you decide.

3. Can someone with PACER access, after reading how DM 'expects' a payoff (or return on its time spent on contingency cases in 2009-2010) check to see how many other cases of IP litigation they have undertaken and have currently filed suit on? If DM has very few, or no other IP cases (and we can guess as to which companies MAY be in a contingency fee based on company size) perhaps we can get some idea of how much DM expects to realize on its time spent on EDIG.... and how profitable they expect to be on the ROI for their time.

Finally, intersting how AUTO was bidding .127 yet didn't want to sell below 3.00

Just all something to consider, based on trading action today, and from reading the posted article earlier. But remember, I suppose I would have a smarter view of 'the big picture' and come to a better decision if I was a latino woman instead of a white male.... so don't make any investment decisions based on my thoughts.

(I bet you're not sure what that last statement has to do with EDIG ...and I'm not sure what it has to do with the qualification to sit on the SCOTUS.)