Seeking Alpha

Daniel B. Ravicher

View as an RSS Feed
View Daniel B. Ravicher's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Will Patent Office Eliminate Vringo's Right To Future Royalties From Google? [View article]
    You are indeed correct that I missed the fact that the Judge ruled on obviousness in Vringo's favor. That was an oversight on my part and I apologize.
    Dec 13 11:30 AM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Preview Copy Of Article On PTO Risk To Vringo Royalties [View instapost]
    You're so flummoxed that you're now resorting to repeating yourself. I've responded to each of these points above. You're a typical VRNG long, with nothing but hope and hype and personal attacks to use to try to respond to my facts and law.
    Dec 13 08:17 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Preview Copy Of Article On PTO Risk To Vringo Royalties [View instapost]
    How can a statement about the future be a statement of fact? It's can't. Statements about the future can only be opinions. Unless you think people have time travel.

    And so what. Let's assume I was wrong and Vringo never moves for an injunction, how does that affect my analysis of anything? Is that really all you can find to criticize me? That's your best shot? Really? So sad.
    Dec 13 08:12 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Preview Copy Of Article On PTO Risk To Vringo Royalties [View instapost]
    I did not say Vringo had asked for injunction. I assumed they will. But even if you're right, so what? So Vringo hasn't even asked for injunction. That's WORSE for them and BETTER for my short. You have anything else to point out that I've said that's wrong? Anything?

    You're saying I'm a liar is libelous. I caution you to not continue doing so. I can subpoena your IP address from SA and pursue a claim against you.

    If my articles were worthless, why are you sweating me so much? Why do so many longs come out desperately launching personal attacks on me? Answer: they know I'm right and they only have hope and hype.
    Dec 13 08:11 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Preview Copy Of Article On PTO Risk To Vringo Royalties [View instapost]
    Wrong. If I were "distorting the truth" people would respond with pointing out where I've said some fact or statement of law incorrectly. Attacking me shows a long on tilt and just angry that they can't respond substantively.
    Dec 13 08:08 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Preview Copy Of Article On PTO Risk To Vringo Royalties [View instapost]
    Don't misquote me, please. You're making the same error so many make and not being precise. Please cut and paste me exactly. Don't summarize what you think I've said. If you look exactly, what I previously said was that I expected the jury would find the patents valid, and they did. I was right.
    Dec 13 08:06 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Preview Copy Of Article On PTO Risk To Vringo Royalties [View instapost]
    Calling me a charlatan is libelous, as it by definition says I'm committing a crime. You're a coward because you hurl insults and attack my character while using an anonymous pseudonym and not revealing your true identity. That's why you're a coward. Put your name and address in your next comment and change your photo to your real photo.
    Dec 13 08:04 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Preview Copy Of Article On PTO Risk To Vringo Royalties [View instapost]
    I don't know why they haven't done something. I don't talk to them and I haven't seen them discuss it in any way. I'm not an idiot that makes up things in my head to make me feel better. That's what Vringo longs do. If it were me, I wouldn't make such a motion because I don't have any basis to make it. This whole "jury made a decimal error" theory is total junk and make believe.
    Dec 13 08:01 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Preview Copy Of Article On PTO Risk To Vringo Royalties [View instapost]
    He doesn't identify a single fact or statement of law that I've made that's wrong. Instead, he says my "characterization" of the facts is "misleading". He says I should suppose certain things are true, when there's no direct evidence of them being true. So, there's nothing for me to respond to. I can't discuss fairy tales and hope and hype, which is about all Vringo supporters have to talk about.
    Dec 13 07:59 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Preview Copy Of Article On PTO Risk To Vringo Royalties [View instapost]
    You don't know what a fact is. You're making wild supposition and assumptions and characterizing them as facts. You have no evidence at all that "Vringo wants to avoid a mistrial". That's such a stupid thing to say to boot. I can't have a rational discussion with you because you aren't rational if you think speculation about motives equals fact.
    Dec 13 07:57 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Preview Copy Of Article On PTO Risk To Vringo Royalties [View instapost]
    I did not report that, I gave my opinion that it would happen. Regardless, is that really the biggest issue you can raise with what I've said substantively, that VRNG hasn't even asked for injunction when I assume they will? That actually makes my negative case better. Is that all you've got? You can't find any other fact or statement of law I've said that is wrong?
    Dec 13 07:54 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Preview Copy Of Article On PTO Risk To Vringo Royalties [View instapost]
    I've never said "vringo spreads rumors of false or misleading reports of any type" but in my article http://seekingalpha.co... I cite another article making a false statement about future royalties. I can cite to others, too.

    But, please, can you really not discuss the facts here? Why spend so much time slinging mud. Let's talk about patent issues, about appeal prospects, about Google's ability to design around, etc. Why is it so hard for Vringo supporters to discuss Vringo itself? Why do they care so much about making personal attacks against those who discuss Vringo's financial prospects directly and cast doubt on them? Are my arguments so irrefutable that all anyone can say in response is attack me personally?
    Dec 13 01:35 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Preview Copy Of Article On PTO Risk To Vringo Royalties [View instapost]
    I've never "made up issues and facts out of thin air." You saying I have is a lie itself. I do agree, though, that the market is far from rational and educated, so stock prices frequently don't accurately reflect true value. Instead, they reflect hope and hype.
    Dec 13 01:21 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Preview Copy Of Article On PTO Risk To Vringo Royalties [View instapost]
    Like a typical dumb coward, you have nothing original to say but to repeat the same stupid attempted insult you made before. Pretty sad.
    Dec 13 01:18 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Preview Copy Of Article On PTO Risk To Vringo Royalties [View instapost]
    Your statement "$493 million is the amount VRNG asked for the total damage payment (past + future)." is 100% completely wrong. $493M is how much VRNG asked the jury to award it in damages. They couldn't ask the jury to award anything for future, as juries don't do that. You have no idea what you're even talking about.

    I agree completely with "The fact is: Judge has not give his final judgment yet." And your point is? I've given my explanation for why I think the judge may actually reduce the jury award and may impose ongoing royalties much lower than what other people expect. So you disagree with my opinion. Fine, but don't lie and say I've misstated facts. I have not.

    Your statement "If using 3.5% x 20.9% formula for the next 4 years, the total damage award will be more than $495 million." may be correct, although it assumes Google's revenues will not decrease in the future. But I discussed in my article here http://seekingalpha.co... why I think that's unlikely. You don't agree with my opinion. Again, that's fine. But saying that I'm misrepresenting fact is a lie and borderline libelous.Stop doing it.
    Dec 13 01:17 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
346 Comments
308 Likes