Seeking Alpha

Daniel B. Ravicher

 
View as an RSS Feed
View Daniel B. Ravicher's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • VirnetX Scores A Big Hit In The RPX IPR Petitions [View instapost]
    Strawsine: When I publish research, I link to all source documents. As for doing research, I made the call to short VHC after the Fed Cir argument. It's down more than 40% since then. These IPR's provide VHC no upside. The only thing they can be is downside. So, even if they get dismissed, that doesn't put VHC in any better place that it already is. Good luck with your investments.
    Mar 27 10:42 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX Scores A Big Hit In The RPX IPR Petitions [View instapost]
    Can you link to these documents you reference, please?
    Mar 27 10:29 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Day 5 Of The Juniper Vs. Palo Alto Patent Trial [View article]
    The judge barred such testimony from the first phase of this trial.
    Mar 5 09:31 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Day 5 Of The Juniper Vs. Palo Alto Patent Trial [View article]
    One of the experts testified he was being paid 700/hr for his work on the case. I've known experts who are paid 1000/hr or more.
    Mar 5 02:23 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Day 4 Of The Juniper Vs. Palo Alto Patent Trial [View article]
    Juries actually are quite fair and competent. I hate people who dismiss them so easily. The Seventh Amendment is one that separates America from the rest of the world, and it's an important right to be able to be tried by a jury of ones peers, and not just a judge.
    Mar 4 04:59 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Day 4 Of The Juniper Vs. Palo Alto Patent Trial [View article]
    The jury is who makes the infringement decision. If they find Palo Alto infringes, that's it. Palo Alto may ask the judge to overrule the jury, but I do not see that being possible, since she denied Palo Alto's summary judgment motions.
    Mar 4 04:58 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Day 4 Of The Juniper Vs. Palo Alto Patent Trial [View article]
    If you click on the word "here" in the second paragraph, that will take you to a checkout where you can purchase my Day 5 report.
    Mar 4 04:57 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Day 4 Of The Juniper Vs. Palo Alto Patent Trial [View article]
    My thoughts on Friday's Day 5 of the trial are here: http://seekingalpha.co.... Court was closed yesterday due to weather.
    Mar 4 02:26 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Day 4 Of The Juniper Vs. Palo Alto Patent Trial [View article]
    I could be wrong regardless of whether I am short, or long, or have no position. I only take a position after I am confident in my analysis, though, so the allegation that I purposefully took a short position and then am intentionally spinning everything negatively to comport with my position has no merit. I could easily close my short position or flip to long at any moment I want to. I let my analysis guide my trade, not vice versa.

    And let me ask, do you refuse to believe anything negative because you are long? Do you assume anyone saying anything negative must be wrong because it doesn't confirm your position? That's called confirmation bias and reeks throughout the investment world.
    Mar 3 03:11 PM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Day 3 Of The Juniper Vs. Palo Alto Patent Trial [View article]
    No and No. The judge allowed him to say he relied on them, but did not allow them to be shown or given to the jury. Palo Alto fought hard to keep them out.
    Feb 27 11:24 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Day 2 Of The Juniper Vs. Palo Alto Patent Trial [View article]
    That could very well be a fair critique, but I do consciously try to avoid confirmation bias. I can easily change my position from short to long if I think the trial is going well for Palo Alto and/or if Palo Alto's share price otherwise goes below what I think it is worth. For example, had Palo Alto's stock dropped to 40 a few weeks ago after the claim construction and summary judgment decision, I likely would have gone long, as I would have interpreted that as an overly negative reaction. Point being, I can make just as much money being long or short. Indeed, I can theoretically make MORE money being long than short. So, if I was a manipulative person, I would take a long position and then pump pump pump it up. I'm not a manipulative person. I first come to a conclusion about what I think is going to happen, then I consider the share price, then I take a position, to which I am not wedded. If my belief about what is going to happens changes, I can whip out my cell phone and flip from short to long in less time than it takes to even write this sentence. Indeed, almost every single client I have on this case is long, and they value the fact that I am short because it tells them that I'm not just giving them what they want to hear.

    Bottom line, a character attack like the one you make is unreasonable. I could be an evil manipulator, trying to impact the stock price for near term gains, intended to close my position before the verdict is returned. I can tell you that's not who I am, and I can let you review my reputation, but I can't convince you that's not true. All I can do, in return, is make the same allegation against you that you make against me, which is to ask whether you have anti confirmation bias, in that you refuse to believe any one who says anything negative about Palo Alto must be lying or manipulative.

    If anything, the most manipulative thing I've seen surrounding this case is the press release Palo Alto sent out after the judge's claim construction and summary judgment ruling, where they only mentioned the parts that were favorable to it, and none of the parts that were unfavorable. Then you literally had analysts (sell side, mind you) sending out reports telling the public that, for example, four of the seven patents had been dismissed from the case, which is absolutely not true. My point is, if you're going to make allegations about the trustworthiness of something that you allege is one sided, you should consider the trustworthiness of things Palo Alto and its pumpers have said themselves.

    But, again, I could care less who wins or loses this trial. I really could. I want to make money and I want to be right. I can do that short or long or even with a more advanced options strategy. So, your accusation that I chose to be short first and then am seeing reality to confirm my position is, I think, severely misplaced.
    Feb 27 07:00 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Day 2 Of The Juniper Vs. Palo Alto Patent Trial [View article]
    I provided my thoughts on the judge's Markman decision here: http://seekingalpha.co....
    Feb 26 06:31 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Did Palo Alto Really 'Win' Juniper Patent Decision? [View article]
    I've written a report with my observations and thoughts from today's first day of the JNPR v PANW trial and made it available here: http://seekingalpha.co....
    Feb 24 06:59 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Did Palo Alto Really 'Win' Juniper Patent Decision? [View article]
    The statement "The judges early ruling at the very least ruled it too close to call." is not accurate. Her ruling merely was that it wasn't so clear that one side should win that a trial wasn't needed. A denial of summary judgment occurs when the judge assumes all facts in favor of one side and asks if it is still nonetheless impossible for them to win. If it's possible for one side to win after you assume all facts in their favor, then you are to deny summary judgment to the other side. So, she did not say it was "too close to call" but merely that it wasn't so far away that it was impossible for one side to win.

    As for requesting a TRO, those are only appropriate when the patent holder can prove that there is irreparable harm occurring because of the infringement. It has nothing to do with whether the claim of infringement has strength or is weak, but rather whether the patentee is suffering irreparable harm as a result of the infringement. Thus, JNPR's failure to request a TRO or a preliminary injunction says nothing about how strong or weak they believe their patents are.

    Lastly, you are slightly confused on the win versus lose issue, as JNPR need only prove that one claim of one patent is infringed by Palo Alto. They could, in essence, lose on all the other claims of all the other patents, and even other claims of the same patent, and yet still be entitled to damages and an injunction based on infringement of just one claim of one patent. So, to use my analogy, LeBron only needs to make one of his seven jump shots to win. He need not make all of them, nor even most of them. He only need make one.
    Feb 17 02:02 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Did Palo Alto Really 'Win' Juniper Patent Decision? [View article]
    Makes sense, but premiums often make straddles less/unprofitable. That's why I attend trials like this, so I can get a better sense of what I think will be the result.
    Feb 13 02:46 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
378 Comments
409 Likes