Seeking Alpha

Daniel B. Ravicher

View as an RSS Feed
View Daniel B. Ravicher's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Vringo Vs. Google: Google Did Not 'Flip-Flop' Or Concede To Ongoing Royalties [View article]
    You said my article contained "incorrect info", not that you disagreed with my opinion in that article. So, yes, that's you saying I made false statements.

    Regardless, you refuse to explain how Google's statement, "[T]ime would also provide the parties with an opportunity to negotiate an agreeable post-judgment reasonable royalty, an approach strongly endorsed by the Federal Circuit," is not a concession that an ongoing royalty is appropriate, which is a complete flip-flop from both its brief just three days earlier that said, "In this case, none of the evidence relied on [] to justify a running royalty was [] reliable. ... By contrast, Defendants introduced evidence that the hypothetical negotiation would have resulted in a lump-sum," and its general argument throughout the case that a running royalty was not appropriate.

    I'm not attacking you personally, despite you attacking my character by saying I provided "incorrect info" in my article. I'm attacking your arguments, and asking you to explain them rather than making bald conclusory "Ravicher's wrong" statements.

    I think perhaps what you meant to say in this piece was that Google had not conceded liability, i.e. that the patents are valid and infringed. I did not, nor have I ever, said they conceded those issues. I've even identified them as issues Google will likely raise on appeal. But, the issue of whether the judge should impose an ongoing royalty or not for continued infringement is one they've indeed conceded. You can continue to say they haven't, just as you say you didn't say my statements were false, but you seem to be relying on a verbatim recitation of language standard and not reality.

    I welcome dissenting views, and strongly believe in the marketplace of ideas. But I do not welcome false allegations against my character and mere conclusory unsupported statements that risk misguiding the public. So, again, please quote what I said in my article that is "incorrect info". If you can't, please retract the statement.
    Jan 9 02:05 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: Google Did Not 'Flip-Flop' Or Concede To Ongoing Royalties [View article]
    What evidence do you have that I lack trial experience? That's entirely false. I do indeed have trial experience, including being the first chair in a trial against GlaxoSmithKline. But you obviously don't care about the truth, as you like to cowardly hide behind Internet anonymity.
    Jan 8 09:05 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: Google Did Not 'Flip-Flop' Or Concede To Ongoing Royalties [View article]
    Adam, I disagree entirely with your statement that "there was incorrect info out there" if you are referring to my article. You cannot identify a single fact from my article that I misrepresent or that is false. For you to imply that I have made false statements is something I take very serious and will not tolerate. I explain in my article that it is Google's statement in its Dec 21 brief of "[T]ime would also provide the parties with an opportunity to negotiate an agreeable post-judgment reasonable royalty, an approach strongly endorsed by the Federal Circuit." that I interpret as a concession by them that an ongoing royalty is proper. If you don't see that as a concession, then I think your definition of the term is drastically different than mine. Ultimately, we'll see who is right between you and me regarding whether the motion for delay will be granted.
    Jan 8 08:55 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: Google Did Not 'Flip-Flop' Or Concede To Ongoing Royalties [View article]
    Thank you for contributing to the marketplace of ideas. I greatly respect your contribution.
    Jan 8 08:55 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Did Vringo Traders Overreact To Google's Flip Flop? [View article]
    I disclosed "VRNG is, in my opinion, highly volatile, as is the litigation process in which it is involved. Therefore, I may change my position in VRNG at any moment for any reason." I have always complied with all laws and SA rules.
    Jan 4 07:56 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Did Vringo Traders Overreact To Google's Flip Flop? [View article]
    I violated neither provision. I had no expectation my article would cause the price to jump 25% in 24 hours. I said in this article today such was an overreaction in my view. Second, I disclosed, "VRNG is, in my opinion, highly volatile, as is the litigation process in which it is involved. Therefore, I may change my position in VRNG at any moment for any reason."
    Jan 4 07:55 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Did Vringo Traders Overreact To Google's Flip Flop? [View article]
    Untrue, as I disclosed "VRNG is, in my opinion, highly volatile, as is the litigation process in which it is involved. Therefore, I may change my position in VRNG at any moment for any reason." I have always complied with all laws and SA rules.
    Jan 4 07:53 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Did Vringo Traders Overreact To Google's Flip Flop? [View article]
    I say in this article that I think the 25% jump was an overreaction. Thus, how on earth could I have predicted it? I expected the stock would move up, yes, that's why I was long, and I said so. Up 20% in 6 hours and 25% in 24 hours? No, I did not expect that. I don't even think the stock moved that much after the verdict was read.
    Jan 4 07:51 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Did Vringo Traders Overreact To Google's Flip Flop? [View article]
    I have violated no rule, read my disclosures, which say "VRNG is, in my opinion, highly volatile, as is the litigation process in which it is involved. Therefore, I may change my position in VRNG at any moment for any reason."
    Jan 4 07:48 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Google Flip Flops, Concedes Vringo Entitled To Ongoing Royalties [View article]
    For readers of this article, please see my followup article from today, "Did Vringo Traders Overreact To Google's Flip Flop?" at http://seekingalpha.co....
    Jan 4 06:58 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • ParkerVision Unlikely To Be Bought [View article]
    Well, if hiring a law firm is the most exciting development for your company over the course of several months, that does say something.

    On Markman, the judge is relatively new to the bench and doesn't seem to have much experience with patent matters. So, adding that to the complexity in the case (number of patents, type of technology, etc.), I'm not surprised it's taking a while for him to issue his claim construction order.
    Dec 19 10:59 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Judge Should Rule Favorably For Vringo On Motions [View article]
    I was extremely constructive throughout my coverage of this case and that lead people to make personal attacks on me, and my religion. There were even death threats on Yahoo MB and a picture of my apartment. Don't blame me for the way I've been treated by VRNG longs. I have not personally attacked anyone, not will I. This article doesn't cite any legal authority or analysis to rebuke. It's merely a parroting of the arguments in Vringo's brief responding to Google's position on the damages and royalty award, which I address in my prior article.

    As to your questions, the deadline to file motions via ECF is generally 11:59pm on the day they are due. If any motion needs to be filed in paper, it is usually due COB for the court. These are the rules generally unless the Judge's individual practices or some order in the case states otherwise.

    As for appeal, either side has 30 days to file Notice of Appeal once the District Court enters final judgment. FRAP 4(a). As I've said before, I expect Vringo to appeal the laches decision and Google to appeal the validity and infringement issues, at minimum.
    Dec 18 03:25 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Judge Should Rule Favorably For Vringo On Motions [View article]
    I have also written pro-VirnetX articles. Not all patent holders are the same. Some get $300M+ verdicts (VirnetX) and others get one-tenth as much (Vringo). Like I said, good luck with the hope.
    Dec 18 03:09 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Judge Should Rule Favorably For Vringo On Motions [View article]
    I haven't attacked the author at all. The title of this article alone "Judge SHOULD Rule" is hope and hype, and the copy and pasting of Vringo's reply brief doesn't add anything substantive. This is opinion that Vringo is right, just like all those who were so confident the jury would award them hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars in damages, when they ended up only awarding a measly $31M (not even the $32 the author here says). But, it's a free country, so keep hoping ... as the stock has dropped 20% since verdict.
    Dec 18 02:59 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Judge Should Rule Favorably For Vringo On Motions [View article]
    Lots of hope and hype. Good luck with that.
    Dec 18 02:52 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
346 Comments
308 Likes