Seeking Alpha
View as an RSS Feed

Blue Corn Investments  

View Blue Corn Investments' Comments BY TICKER:

Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Intel And Micron: More On Memory [View article]
    I appreciate Russ's ability to explain things to investors who are less learned in the technology.

    Thanks Russ.
    Aug 18, 2015. 09:14 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Micron: Fear, Uncertainty And Doubt [View article]
    Good article. Long MU.
    Aug 7, 2015. 05:13 PM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX Patents At High Risk Of Being Invalidated [View article]
    The VirnetX '274 patent just had several claims invalidated today by the PTAB via IPR challenge by Apple. Apple is now 2 for 2 against VirnetX in IPRs that have made it to a PTAB final decision.

    First the '697 on 5/11/15 and now the '274 today.

    Next up by 9/3/15 is the '180 IPR decision and I anticipate Apple will be 3 for 3 since the '180 is very similar to the '274.

    VirnetX has a huge costly IPR/Reexam mess on its hands- I'll be amazed if any non-litigant licenses are signed.

    Alpha Exposure has pretty much been on the mark.
    Jul 29, 2015. 08:24 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • After The Recent Rout Micron Is A Very Strong Buy [View article]
    Russ sums up the keys to my longterm MU investment below - especially contrasted against Durcan's most recent CC statements...

    Russ Fischer:
    "my speculative opinion is that they knew what was coming in 3D NAND and 2D NAND would not be worth the engineering investment"

    "I believe the dramatically improved endurance and data retention of these parts will make this technology the must-have NAND for the next 3-5 years. I think all competitive 2D and 3D NAND will look like junk next to the Micron/Intel product."

    Mark Durcan (from the last Conf Call):
    "We expect the market WILL DEMAND ALL OF THE 3D NAND OUTPUT WE CAN PRODUCE given the attractive cost and performance of our technology and the elastic storage market we will sell into."

    I have built a sizable chunk of MU stock (now with a cost basis just under $21) and will continue to sell covered calls and wait it out.

    Always great to read Russ's take on MU/Intel - by my estimation he was way ahead of the street (including Seth Klarman and David Einhorn) regarding MU!
    Jul 2, 2015. 08:57 PM | 9 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • After The Recent Rout Micron Is A Very Strong Buy [View article]
    This article is right on the mark.
    Jul 2, 2015. 01:56 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • My Bet On Seeking Alpha's Future [View article]
    Phenomenal Team!
    Jul 2, 2015. 12:24 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Intel/Micron Joint Venture Might Not Last After 2018 [View article]
    FYI - Somebody made a huge bullish purchase on the Jan 2017 $20 calls today...about a $5.5M bet.
    Jul 1, 2015. 04:05 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Micron Technology's (MU) CEO Mark Durcan on Q3 2015 Results - Earnings Call Transcript [View article]
    "We expect the market will demand all of the 3D NAND output we can produce given the attractive cost and performance of our technology and the elastic storage market we will sell into."

    Jun 26, 2015. 01:45 AM | 10 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Does Tekmira Have A Shot At Rebounding In 2015? [View article]
    Applying financial metrics like FCF and Dividend Yield, a developmental biotech is nonsense.

    Ebola is estimated a 1/30th the value of the company/HBV - so it is essentially meaningless to the long-term thesis.
    Jun 23, 2015. 08:24 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Celladon: CUPID-2 Is Likely To Fail [View article]
    Great call. New follower here.
    Apr 27, 2015. 07:43 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX / Apple Appeal: Bad News For VirnetX And Other Patent Assertion Entities [View article]

    Wrong. VirnetX patents are still in jeopardy.

    The CAFC only affirmed the jury's decision of "not invalid" - meaning that Apple didn't prove beyond "clear and convincing" evidence the patents are invalid. The CAFC did not validate the patents. It seems like parsing but it is an extremely important technical and legal difference. The CAFC does not "validate" patents.

    The PTAB uses a lower standard of evidence to examine/interpret the patent claims - "Broadest Reasonable Intrepretation" or Preponderance of evidence - thus the reason so many patents are getting knocked out.

    The PTAB would not be "reversing" the CAFC - it would be issuing its decision on invalidity using preponderance of evidence. In Baxter the CAFC upheld the PTAB's invalidity because the court case was not final including all appeals EVEN THOUGH THE CAFC HAD AFFIRMED PREVIOUSLY 'NOT INVALID'.

    Here is a link to a good summary regarding Baxter/Fresenious:

    Here is an excerpt from that link:

    "As an initial matter, it is worth noting how the federal court and the PTO could reach opposite conclusions regarding the validity of the same patent. When an issued patent is challenged in federal court, the challenger, in this case Fresenius, must prove that the patent is invalid by clear and convincing evidence. Federal courts do not actually determine whether a patent is valid –because there is already a statutory presumption of validity – but rather determine whether the challenger has met its burden of proving that the patent is invalid.

    In contrast, in reexamination proceedings, the PTO determines invalidity (or unpatentability) by a "preponderance of the evidence" standard, a standard significantly easier to meet than the clear and convincing standard applied by federal courts. In addition, the claim scope in a PTO reexamination may be broader than the scope determined by a federal court, because the PTO is directed by statute to give claim terms the "broadest reasonable interpretation."Thus, given the different burdens of proof and potential variations in claim scope, it is not surprising that in some circumstances a federal court and the PTO will come to different conclusions regarding the validity of the same patent."

    You best do some reading...

    Good Luck.
    Apr 25, 2015. 05:16 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX / Apple Appeal: Bad News For VirnetX And Other Patent Assertion Entities [View article]
    Thanks for commenting.

    I agree with you on the MSFT deal. That was obviously negotiated out of a position of weakness most likely from:
    1. Adverse CAFC decision
    2. MSFT IPRs had just been instituted
    3. En Banc denial
    4. VirnetX cash position and insignificant revenues

    VirnetX only netted around $16M from the $23M MSFT deal - Nobody in their right mind can believe that is what they were looking for from Skype and Lync. I think this deal could give them trouble if they try to argue for $700M again for Facetime and iMessage(in the new portion of the consolidated trial).

    Regarding the patents I agree...VirnetX has fought fiercely to keep the patents out of the PTAB's purview. The '697 IPR Apple filed has nearly gone the distance and is just waiting for the PTAB ruling in May/June timeframe - the hearing sounds like there was confusion and not necessarily favorable to VirnetX. If the losing party appeals to the CAFC - they can look forward to a CAFC that reverses about 10% of the USPTO decisions on average.
    (Look under Appeals Filed, Terminated, and Pending)

    I think the patents are going to have to go the distance with the PTAB and probable CAFC appeal before any meaningful licensing will come on board - if they survive.

    It will be interesting to see how they market Gabriel. I think it looks like a useful app but it is curious that it wasn't developed 5 years ago...For instance why not develop it shortly after the first MSFT settlement with the money rather than issue a large dividend?
    Apr 25, 2015. 06:08 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX / Apple Appeal: Bad News For VirnetX And Other Patent Assertion Entities [View article]
    Mike Farmwald,
    Congrats on an incredibly accurate call on this article. I was wrong about the CAFC decision and should've given your analysis more weight - I didn't like the tone of the hearing but somehow was able to dismiss it. Then when the CAFC cited the damages in another case - before this case was decided I thought logically they were endorsing the VirnetX damage experts theories. Wrong.

    I was wondering if you are still following VirnetX v Apple and if you have you put any thought into the consolidated trial and potential outcome. I'd be interested to hear your views. Well played.
    Apr 20, 2015. 02:35 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Micron: Memory, Oligopolies And Valuation [View article]
    Time to buy puts!
    Mar 31, 2015. 07:08 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Intel: What The Company Will Show At Mobile World Congress [View article]
    Mar 2, 2015. 09:20 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment