Seeking Alpha
View as an RSS Feed

Adam Gill  

View Adam Gill's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Vringo V. Google: $350+ Million That Is Not Coming Back [View article]
    1. If you read the transcript and the motion, VRNG was very aware that laches was at issue throughout trial and presented evidence on it. In fact, the afternoon before JJ made his laches ruling, VRNG made an oral JMOL re laches. This was not a blindside issue. Being surprised by the ruling does not equal being surprised by the issue.

    2. There are no witnesses in an appeal, much less new ones.
    Feb 11, 2013. 11:23 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo V. Google: $350+ Million That Is Not Coming Back [View article]
    KevinPorter, regarding your statement that the Court made several procedural and substantive errors, what were those errors in your opinion, and which of those errors do you view as the grounds for reversal under the "abuse of discretion" standard here?

    Regarding settlement in the short term, take a look at Vringo's reply to Google's motion to postpone Vringo's motion on future royalties (Dkt. 858) Vringo: "Defendants have not contacted I/P Engine at all since the jury's verdict to convene any such [settlement] negotiations."

    Feb 11, 2013. 11:13 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo V. Google: $350+ Million That Is Not Coming Back [View article]
    Of course a laches decision can be overturned; the question is whether it will be overturned here.

    The case you linked to is not applicable here. It is a TM case in the 8th Circuit, and the ruling in question is a grant of summary judgment - that is a different standard and easier to overrule because you are denying someone a trial. Additionally, in the case you linked to, the lower court failed to analyze two additional factors specific to TM law. Here, the court discussed the relevant factors factors and relied on evidence in the record.

    I'm also not sure the 6 year presumption applies in the TM context as it does in patent law. That would be a big difference, as it flips the burden of proof.
    Feb 11, 2013. 10:16 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo's Suit Against Microsoft - What The Past Tells Us [View article]
    I disagree. Legislation may shift the cost burden for entities that bring unreasonable suits or exploit the system for what amounts to extortion, but there is nothing wrong with someone enforcing a patent who does not make a product. Think garage inventors and universities.
    Feb 7, 2013. 01:16 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo's Suit Against Microsoft - What The Past Tells Us [View article]
    Isn't that kind of what a hedge is? http://bit.ly/XawKnd)
    Feb 4, 2013. 11:01 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo's Suit Against Microsoft - What The Past Tells Us [View article]
    Ed, what kind of hedging strategy is VRNG for ordinary investors? Cuban said he invested as a hedge to the other companies that he owns that are getting hit with patent suits. Ordinary investors don't have that risk exposure unless they are investing in companies in which patent patent assertions are a material risk.
    Feb 4, 2013. 09:48 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo's Suit Against Microsoft - What The Past Tells Us [View article]
    Don't be so fast to dismiss the value of MSFT Alan. I'm working on a series of articles that discusses the merits of the case; I will begin finalizing and publishing them once the briefing is finished (2/15). MSFT is no throw-away.
    Feb 4, 2013. 09:44 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Buffett Might Like This 20% Merger Arbitrage Play [View article]
    As a matter of fact I have. What is your point?
    Feb 4, 2013. 09:31 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 3 Reasons Why Shorting Vringo Right Now Is A Bad Idea [View article]
    By "short" I mean overall position, i.e. including options.
    Feb 1, 2013. 01:05 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 3 Reasons Why Shorting Vringo Right Now Is A Bad Idea [View article]
    So VRNG sued Microsoft today on the Lang patents and the stock is up 5%. VRNG will also almost certainly sue or settle with Yahoo!

    These are the kinds out-of-the-blue upside events that I wrote about, and as I said, there are no downside events on the horizon for a few months. This is exactly why shorting at this time, even if you are a long term short, is a bad idea.
    Jan 31, 2013. 10:37 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 3 Reasons Why Shorting Vringo Right Now Is A Bad Idea [View article]
    Thank you. I am going to address the revenue base and other substantive issues in an upcoming article. I will probably write one on procedure and scheduling first, and then after the briefs are submitted on the 15th I'll take a look at them and write on a number of substantive issues.
    Jan 29, 2013. 09:56 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Google Request To Postpone Vringo Ongoing Royalty Motion Ignored [View article]
    Dan, my comment is intended lightheartedly and a little tongue in cheek, I hope that it came across that way.

    You and I (and who knows who else) will agree at times and disagree at others on various issues and analyses in these cases. And in the areas of disagreement, especially when it comes to predictions, I am sure that I will be wrong some of the time, just like everyone else has and will be. Fortune telling is a difficult business. In any event, I welcome the lively discussions.
    Jan 24, 2013. 12:15 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Google Request To Postpone Vringo Ongoing Royalty Motion Ignored [View article]
    Kevin, I have to disagree with you here. The Court clearly stated why he granted Google's motion, and that was for judicial efficiency (i.e., deciding things in a logical order).

    The post-trial briefings on the merits are not completed, so it is highly unlikely that the court has made a decision on them (he may not have even read the opening briefs - judges are busy!), and even less likely that he is telegraphing that decision in a order on the scheduling of a motion.

    Remember, he does not have a dog in this fight. He's just trying to get to the right answer, which usually involves hearing what the parties have to say first. Judges tend to be, well, judicious.
    Jan 24, 2013. 09:16 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Google Request To Postpone Vringo Ongoing Royalty Motion Ignored [View article]
    This order has nothing to do with the merits of the verdict or the other post-trial motions. It is, as I said in my article and as the Judge said in his Order, the proper sequence for judicial efficiency. Makes no sense to determine the running royalties issue, when issues on which it depends are still undecided.

    It is affecting valuation because the traders who were hoping to see a running royalty motion sooner, will now have to wait until later. Pure timing, not substantive, but still important to some, depending on trading strategy.
    Jan 23, 2013. 11:54 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Google Request To Postpone Vringo Ongoing Royalty Motion Ignored [View article]
    Steve, don't look at it as factoring in the value of the litigation. Consider the value of the assets (patents). The ZTE litigation is the first step.
    Jan 23, 2013. 11:47 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
135 Comments
193 Likes