Seeking Alpha

Adam Gill

 
View as an RSS Feed
View Adam Gill's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Google Claims To Have Defeated Vringo Search Patents [View article]
    If that is what passes as a fact in your book, then good luck to you.
    Apr 17, 2013. 01:02 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Google Claims To Have Defeated Vringo Search Patents [View article]
    Ahh, the assertions of Google's lawyers are your evidence. . .

    . . .The same attorneys that argued forcefully to the jury and the trial judge that these patents are as dead as they come, and not infringed at all by Google's current system!! The same attorneys who filed summary judgment for invalidty and noninfringement, saying that it was SO clear that Google was right on both infringement and validity, that Vringo did not deserve a trial??

    . . . the same attorneys who are going to argue those same arguments to the Federal Circuit and tell how Judge Jackson abused his discretion and the jury was completely wrong?

    If you take those lawyers at their word, then why on earth are you long? This is why in every case the judge instructs the jury that attorney arguments are not evidence.

    Keep in mind also that there are lawyers on the other side of the case who, I imagine, will see things differently. . .
    Apr 16, 2013. 11:32 PM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Google Claims To Have Defeated Vringo Search Patents [View article]
    Exp, changing the accused product is NOT an admission of guilt. That is flat wrong. See my above comment to PP.

    It is a recognition of the fact that a jury verdict exists, and that they do not want to pay royalties going forward. GOOG will continue to press with their appeal on infringement and validity, there is no admission from the attempt to work around.
    Apr 16, 2013. 07:50 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Google Claims To Have Defeated Vringo Search Patents [View article]
    No, it doesn't "establish them as enforceable." This statement is 100% false.

    Google can and will argue in appeal that they don't infringe and that the patents are invalid. They will argue in the alternative that going forward, that even if their old system infringed, their new one doesn't. Changing your system is not an admission. Subsequent remedial measures do NOT establish liability. See Federal Rule of Evidence 407.

    And from your main article, "I believe that Google possesses the software technology to derail the Vringo patents" What is your evidence? Where is your analysis? It looks like you are just making stuff up.

    And "By creating new software that bypasses Vringo's patents, Google establishes Vringo's search patents as valid, profitable and fully enforceable." As above, this is 100% false as a matter of law.

    You are not doing anyone any favors by your speculation and your erroneous statements like this.
    Apr 16, 2013. 07:31 PM | 10 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo May Be Vetting A Buyer [View article]
    This line of inquiry demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the patent system.
    Apr 15, 2013. 11:25 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo May Be Vetting A Buyer [View article]
    Vito, the benefit to VRNG is to engage with MSFT. Settlement and licensing is a process, not an event. These discussions either begin or continue that process.

    It is almost always best for a patentee to engage in settlement discussions, even if it requires a delay, unless the other side is clearly disingenuous or the delay provides some tangible advantage, like relieving a tight deadline. Delaying the start of the suit for a few months is likely not a big deal to VRNG, and since they did not serve immediately after they filed, we know that they planned for and intended to have this period.

    Maybe things are far along, maybe not. My point is that this situation is common--expected even--so the letter to the Court was a non-event.
    Apr 11, 2013. 01:11 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo May Be Vetting A Buyer [View article]
    Vito, no that is not what I am saying. As I said above, "Maybe they are seriously talking and close to a deal, maybe not. There is no way to tell from the letter that was submitted to the court."

    You guys go ahead and keep debating. I am simply offering the benefit of my experience, feel free to take it or leave it.
    Apr 8, 2013. 11:26 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo May Be Vetting A Buyer [View article]
    Settlement talks are a significant gain. There is no sense in debating the point; this actually happens every day.
    Apr 8, 2013. 12:38 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo May Be Vetting A Buyer [View article]
    KP,

    Setting aside your unrealistic quantification of risk, I think you misunderstood the point of my comment, which is that from MSFT's perspective, they would be very willing to listen to VRNG for 4 months in exchange for a delay. I have seen this first-hand many times. It's a no-brainer.
    Apr 8, 2013. 12:13 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo May Be Vetting A Buyer [View article]
    Alan, the revelation that MSFT is talking to VRNG was no surprise to me. I am glad that it was a surprise to the market, though, as it presented a great trade. I'll explain.

    After filing a complaint, a plaintiff in federal court has 120 days to serve the complaint on the defendant. See FRCP 4(m). Vringo filed its suit against Microsoft on January 31 of this year, meaning that it does not need to serve Microsoft until the end of May. This is what Vringo’s attorneys meant in their letter to the court in the Microsoft case when they stated “[t]he deadline to serve the Complaint in this case is May 31, 2013.”

    Given the state of declaratory jurisdiction law, Plaintiffs often file a lawsuit first and then initiate settlement discussions before serving the complaint. That way, the plaintiff still gets to choose the venue, and it gets the attention of the defendant.

    So it looks like that may have happened here. VRNG filed the suit to preserve the forum, then asked MSFT if they want to talk before the suit is served. MSFT of course wants to delay service as much as possible, so they say "sure," and buy themselves 4 months of not paying for yet another patent case. The fact that MSFT is willing to have those talks means nothing. Who wouldn't take a free delay for 4 months, especially while JMOLS, reexam, and an appeal are pending.

    Maybe they are seriously talking and close to a deal, maybe not. There is no way to tell from the letter that was submitted to the court. It was a non-event.
    Apr 8, 2013. 10:56 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo May Be Vetting A Buyer [View article]
    To anyone who is speculating that Google is discussing settlement with or purchase of VRNG, I encourage you to read their recent submission to the FTC:

    http://bit.ly/14K6xCW
    Apr 5, 2013. 02:31 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Following The Smart Money In The Intellectual Property Battle [View article]
    in4thelonghaul, comments like yours are not helpful and reflect poorly on you.
    Feb 28, 2013. 04:02 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • How They Found The Next Vringo [View article]
    I agree that watching this situation is interesting, and kudos to Amy Baldwin for some good research (note that she is not long SPEX), but complaining about missing out on a rush to speculate is ridiculous.

    SPEX has an LOI, the deal may not even happen, there is no visibilty to anything about the patents other than they are wireless. How many patents are there? What are their priority dates? What does the prior art look like? Who developed them? What are they even about (other than "wireless")? What products might they cover? What are the encumbrances? Who is going to be running the company? Who will the lawyers be if there is enforcement and how will they be paid?

    Not sure why you are "cr[ying]" because you "missed out" -- the market cap even now is only $8M!!! Jump in!!

    What are the assets? What is the valuation? Where is the analysis? This is beyond speculation; this is foolishness.
    Feb 28, 2013. 03:23 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Following The Smart Money In The Intellectual Property Battle [View article]
    Nice research.
    Feb 28, 2013. 10:39 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Apple's P/E Multiple Is An Anomaly [View article]
    Excellent article. I think that you and the above commenters are correct that despite what the analysts say, the market is concerned about the ability to grow earnings in the face of Android/Samsung competition. My personal view is that there is a lot of room for growth in established products like laptops, as well as new products like iwatch or television. And very few companies get design like Apple does or have the brand insistence.
    Feb 27, 2013. 11:35 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
135 Comments
193 Likes