Seeking Alpha

Adam Gill

 
View as an RSS Feed
View Adam Gill's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Vringo Vs. Google: Google Did Not 'Flip-Flop' Or Concede To Ongoing Royalties [View article]
    Some people trade options. Timing is critical re premium decay, expiration. . .
    Jan 9, 2013. 01:43 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: Google Did Not 'Flip-Flop' Or Concede To Ongoing Royalties [View article]
    Time will tell. I didn't say your statements were false, I said they were wrong. Time will tell. If Google has really conceded ongoing royalties, you should not be short. Good luck.
    Jan 9, 2013. 01:39 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: Google Did Not 'Flip-Flop' Or Concede To Ongoing Royalties [View article]
    It's a rocket docket because the thing went from filing to trial in a little more than a year. That is fast for a patent case. Motions and appeals take time; people still get to have their day in court.
    Jan 9, 2013. 01:29 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: Google Did Not 'Flip-Flop' Or Concede To Ongoing Royalties [View article]
    Judge has discretion. 7% is kind of high, but I think 3.5 is the floor. As I mentioned to Alan above, I'll probably write on this in more detail.
    Jan 9, 2013. 01:27 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: Google Did Not 'Flip-Flop' Or Concede To Ongoing Royalties [View article]
    I also believe that the jury made an error. But correcting a jury verdict is nearly impossible. Vringo did the exact right thing in requesting a new trial on past damages. Judge has discretion on running royalties, but I think 3.5 is the floor. I will write on this in the coming weeks. We've got time...
    Jan 9, 2013. 01:22 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: Google Did Not 'Flip-Flop' Or Concede To Ongoing Royalties [View article]
    It is exactly what I said it was in my article. I have been opposed to them several times, and I have been a joint defendant with them. In case you do not understand what that means, it means that someone sued their client and my clients in the same case, so we cooperated to some extent to fight the plaintiff in that case.

    Seriously, if I was trying to hide some relationship with Quinn Emanuel, why would I have even mentioned it in my article?
    Jan 9, 2013. 01:15 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: Google Did Not 'Flip-Flop' Or Concede To Ongoing Royalties [View article]
    Thanks for the comments all. I don't mind thoughtful criticism, a lot of the time is is more useful in getting to the real answer than a pat on the back.

    Please understand that my intent in this article is not to bash VRNG. There was incorrect info out there that it looked like people were relying on, I was simply seeking to correct it. Put it in your own analysis where it belongs, for what it's worth.

    I can't respond to questions as quickly as I would like, I have a day job. I will respond to more later.
    Jan 8, 2013. 02:18 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: Google Did Not 'Flip-Flop' Or Concede To Ongoing Royalties [View article]
    I have represented those companies. I said "like" because there are others that I do not mention.
    Jan 8, 2013. 02:13 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: Google Did Not 'Flip-Flop' Or Concede To Ongoing Royalties [View article]
    Thank you, Alan. I have watched and appreciated your comments for some time. You are an asset to the community.

    I have not looked into the reexam too much, but will probably do so. If I have insights I'll share them.
    Jan 8, 2013. 02:11 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: Google Did Not 'Flip-Flop' Or Concede To Ongoing Royalties [View article]
    I don't think Google obtaining a delay in the motion would justify a sell-off. It's just putting things in the proper order. But, it may be relevant for options traders who are expecting events to happen (or not) on a certain timeline.

    There are so many issues that I am not sure how to answer your question on the merits. There are a lot of risks, but on balance, I like Vringo's prospects in the long run.
    Jan 8, 2013. 02:08 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: Google Did Not 'Flip-Flop' Or Concede To Ongoing Royalties [View article]
    Clider, I don't mind if you don't read the rest. Part of my point is to not rely on someone's credentials, but to form your own understanding.

    Jan 8, 2013. 02:01 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • MGT Capital A Better Bet Than Vringo At 1/20th Its Valuation [View article]
    Even setting aside the obvious financial differences and the Google win, there is no comparison between MGT and VRNG.

    Management - VRNG has sophisticated, experienced IP professionals with track records of success in the space; MGT looks like a couple of Wall St. guys who decided to get into the patent game because there's money there. True, there is lots of money here, and I'm sure these guys are smart, but this is a complex game with lots of pitfalls. Skill and experience count.

    Patents- The Lang patents were developed by a recognized industry leader at the time. Same with the Nokia patents. It looks like MGT has 1 gaming patent that they are betting on - #7,892,088. There is no Assignee on the face of that patent, which means it was probably developed by an individual inventor. The patent also has 1 independent claim, which requires a LCD display panel. Why wouldn't a company just switch to OLED next year when the big panels become available?

    I have not formed an opinion on MGT, but after a 5 minute look, I can tell you that these 2 companies are in no way peers at this point. Saying 2 companies are comparable because they both want a billion dollars is meaningless.
    Dec 7, 2012. 12:13 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why You Should Short Vringo Above $4 [View article]
    I would advise you to do your own analysis and not rely on anyone's advice based on their title, especially if you are the person who gave it to them.

    Nov 21, 2012. 03:21 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why You Should Short Vringo Above $4 [View article]
    Modernist, Rachiver is not lead counsel and, according to the Federal Circuit's opinion, did not argue the case at the Federal Circuit. http://1.usa.gov/Teumf9. He is listed as "of counsel" on the briefs, which likely means he helped them.

    Regarding the Supreme Court, he is not even one of the 9 counsel listed on the page that you provided, and the chances of the Supreme Court taking up any case is incredibly small.

    Look, I'm sure he is a smart guy, but your blind reliance on him, especially in a damages calculation, because he is a "top Law Professor" is silly. If anything, you'd want to rely on a "top IP litigator" or "top damages expert"
    Nov 20, 2012. 04:00 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Why You Should Short Vringo Above $4 [View article]
    Really Modernist? What was the landmark case that Rachiver argued at the Supreme Court?

    btw, you might want to check Cardozo's ranking with U.S. News before you start touting their professors as your messiah.
    Nov 20, 2012. 10:10 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
135 Comments
193 Likes