Seeking Alpha

Chris Grunewald

 
View as an RSS Feed
View Chris Grunewald's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Vringo: Not Going Anywhere Fast [View article]
    Ha ha ha
    Apr 26 09:26 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo: Not Going Anywhere Fast [View article]
    Thanks for the kinds words FC.

    And I think a scorched earth policy describes it perfectly. Basically throwing anything out to see if it sticks. Whether that be saying they have a workaround, needing even more delays, etc.

    I see it largely unchanged. The key issues will be laches, jury transposition error, prior art invalidation, and by association w/ transposition error, the revenue base. In the end I think the jury error gets changed and V gets 3.5% of 20.9% of 50% of G's revenue. Some of this was discussed in my past article. But of course a lot can happen in the meantime. Looking forward to the final conclusion of royalty base/rate to further analyze...

    CG
    Apr 26 09:25 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo: Not Going Anywhere Fast [View article]
    Thanks for the kind words! And 200mm is definitely possible w/ willful infringement. Doubt it would be counted in a settlement though.
    Apr 26 09:15 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo: Not Going Anywhere Fast [View article]
    EXP,

    Thanks for the comment(s). I'll try to address all points.

    Point 1 -> Negotiating a settlement versus achieving one are two different beasts. Remember how GOOG and VRNG were negotiating pre-trial (although it wasn't voluntary). With a couple years until their approximate court date, Microsoft has time to wait and analyze how the Google case plays out. This is what I am guessing.

    Point 2 -> Too many "maybe this will happen that makes this a possibility that may cause this to happen." Many CFO's (especially one with Big 4 experience) have M&A experience.

    Point 3 -> Getting compensated extremely highly doesn't hurt. The better question is why is Ellen Cohl leaving?

    Point 4 -> Getting updated to a new exchange isn't a share catalyst (unless it's OTC to something major).

    Point 5 -> Always an MM specialist right? Never people wanting to sell shares? :)

    Point 6 -> This article has a more rounded focus, not just on Google.

    Point 7 -> I assume you are talking about the NOK patent portfolio? You cannot place a realistic, set-in-stone value based on patents due to all the dynamic variables (just look at Google case; originally went for 696mm and got 31mm.)

    Point 8 -> BlackRock is smart. Best point here! Although their funds typically have a low turnover rate though.
    Apr 26 09:14 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo: Not Going Anywhere Fast [View article]
    Thanks for the kind words PP. Unfortunately many longs argue because they don't support something that is overwhelmingly 110% bullish. Oh well.

    Looking forward to your impending one as well.

    CG
    Apr 26 07:41 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo: Not Going Anywhere Fast [View article]
    Oops. Thanks for the catch. Will correct.
    Apr 26 07:38 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Google Values Vringo At $200 Billion [View article]
    Hey Justin. Thanks for the article, well-written. Just keep in mind that the jury *recommended* the 3.5% royalties on x% (realistically either 2.8% or 20.9%, representing the value added from Lang's IP) of GOOGs domestic revenue (approximately 50% of total revenue). Far from a done deal, as jury has no jurisdiction to determine future royalties.

    CG
    Apr 21 12:23 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Google Claims To Have Defeated Vringo Search Patents [View article]
    Thanks for being honest PP. I appreciate the honesty (which is something many VRNG'ers don't have).

    However, I view this statement similarly to Vringo saying they are not an NPE. No dice.

    James Altucher (who, outside of being an overly optimistic VRNG bull, has a highly distinguished computer science background) said that there was not a very large chance at all in Google designing a workaround.

    I am not Nostradamus or a coder, but this all might just be more lawyer posturing.

    CG
    Apr 16 08:33 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Microsoft's Investment History Suggests Major Upside For Vringo Shareholders [View article]
    This article is filled with a lot of unrelated hoopla that really has no meaning on the underlying stock at hand, Vringo. How do you assert a $7.5-$11 valuation with this proposed MSFT partnership (without getting into any fundamental specifics whatsoever)? How would you value the actual MSFT case, considering we haven't even seen alleged damages amounts?

    Another interesting excerpt, "When they are proven wrong, through Vringo creativity in their strategies moving forward, we will see multiple sharp increases in the share price of VRNG." ... Unless you have the jurisdiction of Judge Jackson, this is another arbitrary, pumping statement. Let's add in some relevant concrete analysis on these overly bullish articles, gentlemen.
    Apr 15 06:48 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Can Vringo Win 7% Royalties From Google? [View article]
    3.5% is what they sought, based on Becker's testimony, during trial.

    http://seekingalpha.co...
    Apr 12 06:26 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo: Don't Count Your Chickens [View article]
    Predicting VRNG is easy considering it takes at least a year (depending on district) to have the opportunity to even garner revenue from a lawsuit, sans settlement.
    Apr 12 09:24 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo: Don't Count Your Chickens [View article]
    I would suggest you look up the definition of a non-practicing entity (NPE). Where is the Vringo search engine? Or any type of underlying search technology?
    Apr 12 09:20 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo: Don't Count Your Chickens [View article]
    Oshn,

    Thanks for the comment. Good, legitimite points posted. They unfortunately won't win every suit they are in, though. Also consider the SHIELD Act, which proposes that patent troll (which, what Vringo is right now) makes the defendant pay for legal costs if they lose. And I have a very hard time basing a company on future earnings when its revenue stream is extremely binary (and if appealed, remedy could get wiped out anytime.) Finally, 3-4/pps is a tad lofty to me..not every patent in the portfolio equals an automatic revenue generator.. Be aware of the Jeffrey Skilling type accounting here my friend.

    Best,

    CG
    Apr 12 07:17 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo: Don't Count Your Chickens [View article]
    I do agree that a settlement is the best route for both parties. Let's hope that the head honchos at both respective companies can come to that conclusion as well.
    Apr 12 01:17 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo: Don't Count Your Chickens [View article]
    MTG realism,

    Thanks for your comment. Your explanation concerning why VHC rose sounds more along the lines of an opinion (my own reasoning fits into this category as well). But consider the following:

    1.) VHC fell approximately 7% in the days after the settlement deal was announced
    2.) After they made a big deal of it in their ER (the ER press release had Microsoft in the headline), and the pps rose approximately 300% in short order.

    VHC, or anyone, for that matter, can feasibly sue anyone they want for whatever they want, at least initially. I could sue half the people who bash me on various forums for libel defamation for whatever arbitrary number I think of for pain and suffering. LOL. Anyway. Does filing a suit cause the underlying stock price to increase? Well let's use VRNG as an example. When VRNG declared a suit on ZTE France, a fairly important corporate subsidiary of ZTE, the share price didn't do much at all. Same story for when suits on MSFT and the other 3 ZTE subsidiaries were announced.

    So, in my opinion, declaring a suit doesn't really have an effect on the corresponding price per share because it really doesn't "do" anything. Now if a Markman hearing (or anything else to legitimize the infringement claim) was the underlying cause, I would co-sign that. But not just announcing a suit.

    CG
    Apr 12 01:05 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
115 Comments
53 Likes