Seeking Alpha

Adam Gill

 
View as an RSS Feed
View Adam Gill's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest comments  |  Highest rated
  • Vringo Vs. Google: Showdown Or Workaround [View article]
    "There's no doubt in this author's mind that Quinn honestly relayed what Google said they possessed."

    I can tell you with 100% confidence that the statement that you are referring to is the result of Quinn's very careful and deliberate crafting (i.e., spinning).

    Also, your profile says you worked "in the legal sector" of O&G, but I have suspected for some time that you aren't a lawyer. Please confirm.

    This article does nothing more than restate what others (including you in your last article) have already said. I wish people would stop writing articles just to hear themselves speak. Do some work or analysis and make an actual contribution if you want to write an article.
    Apr 21 09:07 AM | 11 Likes 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 07:31 PM | 10 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • How Will Judge Jackson Handle Google's Confirmed Workaround?‎ [View article]
    Where is the legal analysis? Why don't you publish your names on your website or on SA?

    Before anyone gets worked up about Google's representations about the system it threw the switch on three days ago, don't forget Google's original position: its old system did not infringe either. In fact, they claimed noninfringement was so clear that they filed for summary judgment, and for judgment as a matter of law. Turns out they were wrong about that. And about validity. And about damages. And they had the same obligations to the court as they do now.

    I am not saying that the workaround does or does not infringe, but one thing is for sure, you can't take Google's word for it. One sided arguments always sound pretty good.

    And the '420 final office action should not be a major factor in the royalty determination, because the '664 is unaffected, so Google's bargaining position is no better even assuming the '420 is out (which would be a premature assumption) - it still faces valid claims.

    Love the disclosure: "Some members hedged against those risks by buying put options, which were closed as well." Combined with yesterday's disclosure the translation is: We bet wrong that the stock would drop below $2.50 after Google's motion, and closed our losing trade today.
    May 14 10:07 PM | 9 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 11:32 PM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Google Request To Postpone Vringo Ongoing Royalty Motion Ignored [View article]
    If only someone had told us that this might happen. . .

    *whistles inconspicuously*
    Jan 23 07:06 PM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo: A Patent Play Stock Ready To Explode Again [View article]
    VRNG is building a business. They need more quality portfolios. Patents to them are as good as cash, adjusting for risk and NPV. The same is not true for the market. That's one of the dynamics that creates such great opportunities and volatility in this space.
    May 30 10:13 AM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: Google Did Not 'Flip-Flop' Or Concede To Ongoing Royalties [View article]
    Dan, I have not attacked your character, despite your repeated insistence that I have, and I have no interest in this kind of fight. Your comments about my character and threats of suing me are unwarranted and I think do you a disservice.

    My comment about selling into a frenzy was directed to the reactions and apparent fears (overreactions?) of the commenters, who are suddenly paranoid about motivations and (ironically) along with you now, are pressing me for all kinds of background information on me and my career.

    We will know soon enough if my article is right. I don't even have a position, so I am not inclined to bend over backwards to justify myself to you or anyone else.

    I have consciously refrained from passing judgment on your trading. It is not lost on me how, when the commenters to your article were attacking you, you kept admonishing them to focus on the merits rather than attacking you personally . . .
    Jan 9 05:21 AM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Wins Key Victory Over Google Revenue; Awaits 7% Royalty Decision [View article]
    This should have been a surprise to no one. 3.5% was decided by jury. JJ confirmed 20.9 was royalty base in August.
    Jan 6 10:18 AM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Is Vringo Or Google Cheering The Federal Circuit's Fresenius Decision? [View article]
    If you look at the concurrences and Judge Newmann's dissent in the October 2012 denial of Fresenius' en banc request re PTO invalidiy determination, you will see that several members of the Federal Circuit believe that a final judgment in a court proceeding is still res judicata. The 3 concurring justices concurred in the denial of the en banc because they trusted that the res judicata principles would remain undisturbed. And then there's Newmann, who is even more outspoken on this issue.


    To the extent that this principle has changed with yesterday's Fresenius decision, this is probably a decent en banc candidate with significant support for res judicata.
    Jul 3 01:03 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • How Will Judge Jackson Handle Google's Confirmed Workaround?‎ [View article]
    Alan why do you despise them on philosophical grounds? I have never worked for or represented a troll/NPE, and have battled many. I never had a problem with the NPE thing itself. The problem is some of the economic distortions, questionable assertions, extortions, and shady cases that you often see - the bad tactics. VRNG seems to have a reasonably good case.

    If you do not like trolls, isn't that like saying you should be able to infringe a valid and infringed patent because the person bought the asset or because you don't like their business model? How are traders more virtuous? Should a trader be prevented from re-selling a stock or taking a dividend because he did not create the underlying asset and his model is to buy the rights and cash in - i.e., enforce?

    What about someone who does not make movies or music, but buys the rights to a catalog for the royalties? Do you have a problem with that? Are beatles songs free now because MJ did not create them?

    Intresting area of thought and debate.
    May 14 11:48 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • How Long Until Vringo's Verdict Against Google Pays Off? [View article]
    Hey look, another anonymous patent expert on the internet. Welcome to the party.

    It is curious that members of your team bought puts in advance of Google's opposition, as that does not seem to be dependent on legal or technical analysis, and you guys hold yourselves out as legal experts. Buying puts before the opposition brief seems to anticipate panic selling in response to Google's anticipated design around and reexam arguments - but those cats were already out of the bag.

    I have only skimmed Google's opposition, but I spotted several questionable assertions, some of which may affect credibility. For example, Google says the factor of "Defendants' size and financial condition" is neutral because both companies are "large, publicly traded companies." I actually laughed out loud when I read that.


    May 14 10:21 AM | 4 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 09:44 AM | 4 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 09:16 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: Google Did Not 'Flip-Flop' Or Concede To Ongoing Royalties [View article]
    Dan, I believe that you are incorrect that Google has conceded to ongoing royalties. I am not attacking your character, I just think that your analysis is flawed. We have each stated our positions, there is no sense in going back and forth. Time will tell if Google has, in fact, conceded to ongoing royalties.
    Jan 9 02:20 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Potential Long-Term Value Of Vringo Is $100 A Share [View article]
    Erik, I have been a patent litigator for 10 years. There will not be an injunction in this case.

    You and anyone else who "invests" based on the possibility of an injunction deserve to lose all that money. I am not saying this to be mean or snarky, I am saying this because it is true.
    Oct 30 11:22 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
135 Comments
193 Likes