Seeking Alpha
View as an RSS Feed

Chris Grunewald  

View Chris Grunewald's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • 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, 2013. 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, 2013. 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, 2013. 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, 2013. 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, 2013. 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, 2013. 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, 2013. 01:05 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo: Don't Count Your Chickens [View article]
    Here you go, sir.

    http://aol.it/YP652Z
    Apr 11, 2013. 11:53 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo: Don't Count Your Chickens [View article]
    Haha. You should try multi-tasking sometime. Crazy what that can do for you, ace!
    Apr 11, 2013. 11:50 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo: Don't Count Your Chickens [View article]
    Mcreel65,

    Thanks for the comment.

    If I remember correctly, there were two days of huge moves. The first was from, as you sort-of incorrectly state, GOOG's summary judgment getting knocked down. As a result, Stillman ordered the two parties to go into pre-trial settlement discussions (court-ordered). Stillman was taken off the case due to a lack of impartiality as a result of participating in settlement discussions (ultimately, nothing was accomplished).

    If you find evidence to the contrary, please post a reliable source.

    Thanks

    CG
    Apr 11, 2013. 10:29 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo: Don't Count Your Chickens [View article]
    Just my opinion backed up by a very similar underlying example. Don't proclaim to be the God of the Markets here.
    Apr 11, 2013. 10:21 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo: Don't Count Your Chickens [View article]
    Thomas,

    Thank you for the heads-up. You are correct; the appeal from EDVA would go the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. Got my #s mixed up. I apologize, will correct. And we simply don't know the underlying substance of the appeal b/c the appeal brief hasn't been released yet. That's why I said that I believe something will stick, but it's hard to know exactly "what".

    CG
    Apr 11, 2013. 08:43 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo: Don't Count Your Chickens [View article]
    Ahh yes yes. Keep in mind that the 35% royalty rate is owed to NOK by VRNG upon a win (IF they win). Also keep in mind that this is a two-part trial (at least in Germany), and V can't receive any remedy until 2Q2014 (acc'd to David Cohen on conference call; preliminary trial [where injunction could happen], then a subsequent damages trial). We don't even know what $$ amount they are suing for!

    And as they keep hitting search companies, the respective market shares decrease and decrease. Which means the subsequent damages amounts decrease and decrease. I might need a bigger calculator to properly evaluate the fractions and decimals.

    CG
    Apr 11, 2013. 08:22 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo: Don't Count Your Chickens [View article]
    Flyonass,

    Well. Speculation helps. I think you are trying to twist my words here-- that was meant in the context of Vringo receiving their remedy from the Google trial (just re-read the part concerning VHC).

    And if that is indeed what the GOOG appeal is based on, I haven't seen the actual appeals brief. And since this technically hasn't been appealed yet (Notice of Appeal is only the first step), I have a hard time legitimizing your assertion.

    CG
    Apr 11, 2013. 08:06 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo: Don't Count Your Chickens [View article]
    Thanks for the comment Alan.

    It is certainly possible that Vringo gets higher than a 3.5% royalty rate percentage on future royalties (multiple precedents of this). But I doubt that they will get higher overall. They proffered evidence supporting a 3.5% royalty rate and asked the Court for it; they can't just throw out arbitrary numbers (e.g., 7%) because they feel like it.

    The 15.6 million versus 156 million is an egregious error. Refer to my last article (linked within this one) on why I think this has a chance of getting reversed. Jackson didn't use his jurisdiction to use 60(a) on it; but with the Appeals Court looking at it, maybe it will be different this time around. This is a federal ban on Additur (trial judge adding $$ to juror damages amt's), so that very well could be a reason why the trial judge (Jackson) didn't do it in this case.

    CG
    Apr 11, 2013. 07:42 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
122 Comments
54 Likes