Seeking Alpha
View as an RSS Feed

Daniel B. Ravicher  

View Daniel B. Ravicher's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Google Request To Postpone Vringo Ongoing Royalty Motion Ignored [View article]
    Yes, Adam, you were right and I was wrong.
    Jan 23, 2013. 09:41 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Google Request To Postpone Vringo Ongoing Royalty Motion Ignored [View article]
    Thank you for your kind words.
    Jan 23, 2013. 09:39 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Google Request To Postpone Vringo Ongoing Royalty Motion Ignored [View article]
    That's absolutely true. I do not.
    Jan 23, 2013. 09:39 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Google Request To Postpone Vringo Ongoing Royalty Motion Ignored [View article]
    See http://seekingalpha.co...
    Jan 23, 2013. 09:37 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Google Request To Postpone Vringo Ongoing Royalty Motion Ignored [View article]
    I definitely think it would have been better for VRNG had the postponement not been granted. It's not a devastating thing, and the Judge doesn't say anything in the order that indicates he's leaning one way or the other on the remaining motions, so we'll have to see.
    Jan 23, 2013. 09:36 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Google Request To Postpone Vringo Ongoing Royalty Motion Ignored [View article]
    Lots has changed since the verdict, including just last week the PTO refusing to even consider three of four references Google submitted to attack the '664 patent. That was worth a material move up to me. I also thought the failure of Google's postponement request was also good news for Vringo, but now that's been proven to have actually been granted, so I've revised back that benefit. I do more of a qualitative analysis, than quantitative. With as much venture capital and angel financing that I've been involved with, I don't get all hung up on spreadsheets and earnings estimates, which I think are all pretty unreliable, especially for a company like VRNG that is so dependent on one court case. But, reasonably minds can disagree, and I'd love to hear your opinions, too.
    Jan 23, 2013. 09:35 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Google Request To Postpone Vringo Ongoing Royalty Motion Ignored [View article]
    I am no factoring a value to those other actions and patents much beyond what their cost basis is. European patent litigation does not have the same upside as U.S. patent litigation does.
    Jan 23, 2013. 09:32 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Google Request To Postpone Vringo Ongoing Royalty Motion Ignored [View article]
    I change my position when the price changes and/or there are developments in the case. And, to me a 20%+ move is significant. I generally agree with you that "If VRNG wins, its going up far and fast and way beyond $3.77", but they haven't won yet, and there's also a disagreement about what it means to "win." If the judge awards $1 in future royalties, that's not a "win". I'm glad you have conviction and are patient.
    Jan 23, 2013. 09:31 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Google Request To Postpone Vringo Ongoing Royalty Motion Ignored [View article]
    It just doesn't make any sense to me. By now, he has to know that Google has written its opposition brief on the issue. At least he could let them go ahead and submit the brief Friday and if he wanted to stay the motion then and perhaps order supplemental briefing later, he could. I know I look like an idiot on this, which is totally fair, but I just don't see any sense in granting the postponement two days before the brief is due when obviously most of the work to write the brief must be done.
    Jan 23, 2013. 09:29 PM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Google Request To Postpone Vringo Ongoing Royalty Motion Ignored [View article]
    You're right, I am a horrible speller. Thanks for pointing that mistake out. I'd correct it if I could, but I can't edit published articles.
    Jan 23, 2013. 09:26 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Google Request To Postpone Vringo Ongoing Royalty Motion Ignored [View article]
    CRITICAL UPDATE: Within an hour or two after Seeking Alpha published my article, the Judge issued an order (http://bit.ly/UWSNxV) granting Google's postponement motion. In the Order, the Judge said:

    "The Court's consideration of said motion shall be postponed until after the Court rules on the parties' post-trial motions currently pending before the Court under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 50, 52, and 59. The Court will provide further guidance on the revised briefing schedule for Plaintiffs Motion for Post-Judgment Royalties as necessary after the Court completes its consideration of the other relevant post-trial motions."

    Thus, obviously my conclusion from this article Seeking Alpha published earlier today was wrong. I did say in my article that:

    "Of course, he could grant Google's postponement request at any time .... . It's his court and he can do what he pleases when he pleases."

    But, there's no sugar coating it, I was wrong. Isn't the first time, and won't be the last time, either.

    Updated Disclosure: I am long VRNG as of the publication of this comment (VRNG is at 3.24) and my personal opinion at the moment as a result of the issues discussed herein is that it has a fair value of about 3.40-3.50. I'm not a financial advisor, and that is not a suggestion to any one to buy or sell VRNG. I merely state it because the Seeking Alpha editors have asked me to do so anytime I write about VRNG. VRNG is, in my opinion, highly volatile, as is the litigation process in which it is involved and, therefore, I may change my position in VRNG at any moment for any reason or no reason at all. Please see all my previous articles, including specifically those linked to herein, for additional disclosures.
    Jan 23, 2013. 09:19 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Will VirnetX Be Granted An Injunction Against Apple? (Ravicher Report) [View instapost]
    Didn't know Moreno was a patent attorney and had opined specifically on whether VirnetX will be granted an injunction. Have a link you can share where he does? Would love to see it, and am sure others would appreciate it, too.
    Jan 22, 2013. 11:02 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Update On Google Request To Postpone Vringo Ongoing Royalty Motion (Ravicher Report) [View instapost]
    Vringo's MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF PREJUDGMENT INTEREST, POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST, AND SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES FOR DEFENDANTS POST-DISCOVERY / PRE-VERDICT INFRINGEMENT was fully briefed as of December 7, so the judge could rule on it at any time. However, I expect he will wait to rule on it at the same time he rules on some or all of the other post-trial motions, including the parties' respective motions for new trials on damages, which have not yet been fully briefed.
    Jan 21, 2013. 10:09 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Will Patent Office Eliminate Vringo's Right To Future Royalties From Google? [View article]
    OK, James, how about you do dd about the two patents and publish your own analysis? Or, go hire your own patent attorney to do so on your behalf. I love the marketplace ideas, so feel free to contribute to it rather than be a useless complainer of other's work.
    Jan 20, 2013. 11:03 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Will Patent Office Eliminate Vringo's Right To Future Royalties From Google? [View article]
    I discussed why in the article. First, the PTO uses a broader claim construction. Second, the PTO only must provide a preponderance of evidence of invalidity, not clear and convincing evidence.
    Jan 20, 2013. 11:01 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
379 Comments
417 Likes