Seeking Alpha

Adam Gill

 
View as an RSS Feed
View Adam Gill's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest comments  |  Highest rated
  • Judge Jackson's Ruling Is The Catalyst [View article]
    OR, perhaps the judge's laches ruling was simply applying the law to the facts of the case. . .
    Nov 2 11:06 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Potential Long-Term Value Of Vringo Is $100 A Share [View article]
    Speculation based on incorrect assumptions.

    VRNG will not get an injunction against Google. There is almost no chance of this happening. VRNG does not compete with Google, an injunction would devastate Google, the public interest in keeping Google running is high in terms of end users and advertisers, and I have seen nothing to suggest that money is not a perfectly adequate remedy. These are important factors in the injunction analysis.

    Also, not that it matters much except for the competitive inquiry above, but VRNG is still an NPE with respect to the Lycos and Nokia patents. The "P" is for "practicing," as in, practicing the (Lycos or Nokia) patents. VRNG doesn't practice those patents as far as I can tell, which have nothing to do with ring tones.

    .
    Oct 29 12:16 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo ticks higher after Google workaround documents don't appear [View news story]
    I was being serious and offering you advice, and good advice at that. Take it or leave it, it's your money.

    So here is how it usually goes. GOOG without question produced some documents and perhaps (but perhaps not) even some source code. The production may or may not be voluminous, and most likely was given to VRNG on the last possible day. It will take a little while for VRNG to review it, then ask GOOG to supplement and GOOG will say ok or no. If they say no, VRNG can file a motion to compel. I would expect a motion in 1-2 weeks if there is going to be one. That is fairly fast for this sort of thing, especially if the production was large or dense, but expert reports are due in a month so they have to get cracking.
    Aug 27 05:38 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • How Spherix Inc. Could Be Valued At $14-$61 Per Share [View article]
    That is part of the question in the long term. In the short term, the question is, what is the effect of 15x dilution? Answer seems obvious to me, but apparently not to some.
    Aug 23 09:41 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Are Facebook, Twitter And Google Infringing Vringo's Quantumstream Patents? [View article]
    SoCalNative - perhaps you would not have tired of it if you made a few thousand bucks every time it went up and down. . .
    Aug 14 10:01 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Are Facebook, Twitter And Google Infringing Vringo's Quantumstream Patents? [View article]
    Kevin, it is not as simple as that. First, read the disclaimer on the Google Patent page - that's the little question mark next to "priority date"

    There is analysis that goes into it. A continuation-in-part does not necessarily get the benefit of the earliest date in the chain. Specifically, claims containing new matter (which is why it is a CIP) do not get priority.
    Aug 14 10:00 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • How Spherix Inc. Could Be Valued At $14-$61 Per Share [View article]
    How is it even possible to trade 3X the float in a single day? Crazy.
    Aug 5 06:05 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Is Vringo Or Google Cheering The Federal Circuit's Fresenius Decision? [View article]
    It means that there is a decent likelihood that the Federal Circuit may re-hear this issue en banc, in which case there may be a different outcome.


    Jul 4 01:11 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo: Where's The Money? [View article]
    The Order is the event, not the Hearing. There are usually months in between.
    Jun 4 10:49 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Google Values Vringo At $200 Billion [View article]
    This is wrong as a matter of law. For example, see Federal Rule of Evidence 407.
    Apr 22 01:29 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Google Claims To Have Defeated Vringo Search Patents [View article]
    Again, what are they supposed to say? No one knows what the change is.
    Apr 17 01:31 PM | 1 Like 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 07:50 PM | 1 Like 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 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 11:26 PM | 1 Like 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 10:56 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
135 Comments
193 Likes