Seeking Alpha

Daniel B. Ravicher

 
View as an RSS Feed
View Daniel B. Ravicher's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • 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
  • Preview Copy Of Article On PTO Risk To Vringo Royalties [View instapost]
    So you have nothing to say but personally attack me. Thank you for proving my point yet again, coward.
    Dec 13 12:53 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Preview Copy Of Article On PTO Risk To Vringo Royalties [View instapost]
    I have no idea from where you made all this stuff up. You don't know me at all. I have no emotional attachment to this case whatsoever. I went into it completely unbiased, happy to come to any opinion, pro or con, or no opinion at all. That's how I became pro-PRKR for example. I don't like people betting based on hope and hype, some of which I believe has been purposefully spun, including specifically the false articles that the jury awarded Vringo an ongoing royalty, which they did not.

    Regardless, if I was a purely rational financially motivated actor, I'd be a partner at a law firm and not a non-profit lawyer who teaches. I care about the public interest, and dispelling false hope and hype in the stock market is something I find important and enjoyable to do.

    In conclusion, please don't ever again make statements of fact that you can't prove to be true, such as how I came to my conclusions, whether I have emotional investment here, etc. How about instead we all talk about Vringo, not me. Let's talk about the puny jury verdict that was less than a tenth of what Vringo asked for. Let's talk about the fact that the jury did not issue ongoing future royalties and the judge hasn't yet either. Let's talk about how Vringo has made absolutely no motion to "correct" some supposed made-up "decimal error." Please. stop talking about me and focus on Vringo. if you were really a rational investor, you'd do that.
    Dec 13 12:44 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Preview Copy Of Article On PTO Risk To Vringo Royalties [View instapost]
    "shows jury intent"? Are you serious? The jury's intent was shown by their verdict form, which awarded $31M. That's it. Your hope and hype is leading you to read "intent" out of thin air. I suggest you stop being dilusional and deal with reality. The sooner the better.
    Dec 13 12:29 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Preview Copy Of Article On PTO Risk To Vringo Royalties [View instapost]
    How about at least trying to point out some fact or statement of law I've made that's wrong, rather than trying to personally attack me? Is it because you can't? Is it because all you have left to do is attack people personally if they say anything negative about your precious VRNG?

    You have my name and my address and my phone number. I've got nothing to hide. You, on the other hand are a coward who hides behind internet anonymity and makes cheap personal attacks. You just prove how silly and weak VRNG longs are.
    Dec 13 12:27 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Preview Copy Of Article On PTO Risk To Vringo Royalties [View instapost]
    You're merely parroting arguments made by Vringo and other longs filled with hope and hype. I don't give such junk any respect, because it's junk. I won't take part in the spreading of false baseless hope and hype. I rely on facts, not wild speculation or weak arguments. You also seem to have no idea what an appeal is. Jury verdicts of infringement and validity are appealed - and reversed - all the time. Your misunderstanding of the law further supports my conclusion that VRNG longs are unsophisticated.
    Dec 13 12:24 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Preview Copy Of Article On PTO Risk To Vringo Royalties [View instapost]
    I assumed (and still assume) they will make such a motion. They haven't yet. And your point is? How is the existence or nonexistence of such a motion relevant to anything at all I've said. Please, if that's your best counter attack to what I've said in all my articles, then you've got nothing.

    Please identify a fact or statement of law I've made that's not true. I admit, when I predicted Vringo would win the trial and be awarded $95M I was completely wrong. They only got $31M. I'm sorry my opinion was so wrong.
    Dec 13 12:21 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Preview Copy Of Article On PTO Risk To Vringo Royalties [View instapost]
    My tweet was in response to people saying the verdict should be enlarged. Please read what I say in context, and don't cut and paste to support your long biased twisting of my words.

    You are correct that Google has not yet filed a motion to reduce the verdict, but they have said that they are going to and they have given an explanation for their intended motion.

    You say I'm "one-sided" because you don't like what I say. If I was pro-VRNG you wouldn't be complaining at all. Remember, I'm the guy who said VRNG would win teh trial and be awarded $95M. Yeah, I was wrong, they only got $31M. Sorry. But I didn't see anyone, including Steve Kim, putting his real name with a specific prediction.

    And what's this about motives? Why did you take time to write your comment? Aren't you a long who's motives are to discredit anyone who says anything negative about VRNG? So I'm not sure what your point is about that. But, to be clear, I didn't take a short position in VRNG and then come up with arguments to support that. I did the exact opposite. I analyzed the situation honestly and then took a position that matched my honest assesment of the truth. I think VRNG is mostly hope and hype. The $31M jury verdict proves that, when they were hoping and hyping for $493M.

    I've writing pro-articles for VHC and PRKR, both of whom have patent suits against big companies. So, you can't say I'm just anti-patent holder.

    Bottom line is you don't liek what I say, and so instead of responding to what I say, and contradicting the facts and law, you joint eh weak longs who personally attack me, which further proves how write I am, that people can't even argue against my substantive arguments.

    I'm sorry you've bought into the hope and hype, but it's not my fault. I'm doing my best to dispel the false hope and hype with truth.
    Dec 13 12:19 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Preview Copy Of Article On PTO Risk To Vringo Royalties [View instapost]
    I'd usually expect the PTO to respond to VRNG's response within 6-12 weeks, but since it's the holidays, I'd given them an extra couple weeks. But, there's no hard time limit on the PTO, although they are supposed to handle reexaminations quickly, so it could possibly take a year or more, or they could do it within days. Depends on the Examiner's workload. But, my expectation would be January or early February.
    Dec 13 12:09 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Preview Copy Of Article On PTO Risk To Vringo Royalties [View instapost]
    I'm performing a public service exposing the truth, setting forth facts and law and giving my educated opinion. I don't even use the term "patent troll", which I've said publicly is pejorative, imprecise, and unhelpful. I'm not sure what this huge fact is that I blatantly misrepresented about an injunction, so please quote what I said and point to proof that it's wrong. If you can't, your statements that I'm lying are libelous and I take it seriously.

    I've writing pro-articles for VirnetX (VHC) and ParkerVision (PRKR), so to imply I'm just an anti-patent lunatic is also baseless. Do some research before you make unfounded accusations, please.
    Dec 13 12:07 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Preview Copy Of Article On PTO Risk To Vringo Royalties [View instapost]
    I'm not scaring anyone. I'm spreading facts and truth about Vringo and that's what scares people.
    Dec 12 11:10 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Preview Copy Of Article On PTO Risk To Vringo Royalties [View instapost]
    You are making a complete lie, and it's borderline libelous. I have never collaborated with Google. I have given two public talks at their campus, which are available on YouTube, but they neither compensated me for those talks, nor even covered my expenses. I have had absolutely no contact with Google about this matter and, in fact, at a recent conference on software patents at Santa Clara Law School, I criticized what their General Counsel had to say about "patent trolls".

    But, more importantly, your personal attack is a cliche and weak attempt to distract from the fact that what I've said about Vringo has been completely true and accurate. If you could point to an error of fact or law that I've made, you'd surely do so. The fact that you and so many other Vringo supporters have to resort to personally attacking me only gives me more confidence that the company is supported by weak childlike shareholders who are either unaware of Vringo's true prospects, or who know the truth but are purposely trying to prevent it from becoming public.

    Continuing to make up lies and attack me personally only serves to give me even more confidence that I am right.
    Dec 12 11:09 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Preview Copy Of Article On PTO Risk To Vringo Royalties [View instapost]
    I am spreading facts. Vringo supporters respond with personal attacks. No one has yet cited a single fact I've ever gotten wrong, and even my opinion predicting how the jury would rule was overly generous to Vringo. But, please, feel free to continue with personal insults and avoid dealing with the truth of Vringo's situation. You only give me more confidence in my conclusions about the weakness of Vringo's shareholder base.
    Dec 12 11:05 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Preview Copy Of Article On PTO Risk To Vringo Royalties [View instapost]
    The vast majority of those "pages" were copies of prior art that they are required by law to disclose to the PTO once they know of it. Their substantive response, which I've made available at http://bit.ly/UCS43A, is a mere 18 pages and shouldn't take the PTO long to respond to at all.
    Dec 12 11:03 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
378 Comments
413 Likes