Seeking Alpha

Daniel B. Ravicher

 
View as an RSS Feed
View Daniel B. Ravicher's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest comments  |  Highest rated
  • Analysis Of Oral Argument In Vringo Vs. Google Patent Infringement Appeal [View article]
    The "feds" aren't involved with this case at all. The only people deciding it are the three judges on the Federal Circuit, one of whom (Chen) was recently an official at the Patent Office, including during time when reexams of Vringo's patents were pending. Your conspiracy theory has no basis in reality. Please don't pollute rational discussion with hallucinogenic hyperbolic hypotheses.
    May 7 04:17 PM | 22 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Rated As Rotten: The Company Shows Why You Don't Speculate On "Patent Trolls" [View article]
    Note: Judge Chen DISSENTED from the opinion of the court, which was written by Judges Wallach and Mayer. Please don't attack CHEN when he would have AFFIRMED the validity of the patents.
    Aug 17 01:40 PM | 20 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Might Other Companies Be Liable If Herbalife Is A Pyramid? [View article]
    Suing me would give me the opportunity to get access to all of HLF's internal files and to depose their executives. I'd welcome the chance to do that.
    Feb 5 02:16 PM | 12 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Rated As Rotten: The Company Shows Why You Don't Speculate On "Patent Trolls" [View article]
    Judge Chen DISSENTED from the opinion of the court, which was written by Judges Wallach and Mayer. Please don't attack CHEN when he would have AFFIRMED the validity of the patents.
    Aug 17 01:40 PM | 9 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Analysis Of Oral Argument In Vringo Vs. Google Patent Infringement Appeal [View article]
    No, the "jury error", or more appropriately, the district court judges refusal to correct any such "jury error", was not an issue raised by Vringo on appeal. The $31M verdict will never be changed upward to correct some supposed "jury error". Please, let that issue die forever. It's over. Forget about it and move on to what's actually in play.
    May 7 04:09 PM | 9 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Analysis Of Oral Argument In Vringo Vs. Google Patent Infringement Appeal [View article]
    Judge Chen was just asking if the jury made a mess by finding both copying and independent invention at the same time. You internet people sure can make a big deal out of nothing. Vringo's lawyer defended the attention and correctness of the jury's verdict. So they made one mistake on one patent. Big deal. That's not a basis to reverse and say it's clear and convincing the patents are obvious, especially in light of the jury's other findings on obviousness.
    May 7 04:55 PM | 8 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • ParkerVision V. Qualcomm: Daubert Ruling And First Week Of Trial [View article]
    As a registered patent attorney, I completely disagree with your legal analysis and conclusions, which are flawed and incomplete. But even if one were to assume everything you say is correct, you are only considering here past damages that the jury will award if it finds at least one claim of at least one of Parkervision's four patents in suit infringed and not invalid. If a single claim of a single Parkervision patent is found to be infringed and not invalid, then Parkervision is entitled to not just past damages from the jury, but also ongoing royalties, which the judge will set, and which are required to be at a royalty rate higher than that used by the jury to calculate past damages. You also fail to acknowledge the judge can award Parkervision up to three times the awarded past damages and its attorneys fees if the jury finds Qualcomm's infringement was willful, which seems very likely from the extensive history between the parties, and Qualcomm's own internal emails acknowledging that Parkervision had broad patents on the "holy grail" of down converter technology.
    Oct 14 11:50 PM | 8 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Analysis Of Oral Argument In Vringo Vs. Google Patent Infringement Appeal [View article]
    Google would have 120 days to file a petition for cert, and then Vringo could file an opposition. The Supreme Court would take a couple months to decide the petition (i.e. decide whether to hear the case or not). But, during that process, the judgment can be pursued by Vringo, meaning Google would have to pay the judgment and additional damages. For the ongoing royalties, Vringo has to wait for the Court of Appeals to hear that second appeal and rule on it.
    May 7 04:15 PM | 7 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 09:29 PM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 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
  • Vringo Vs. Google: Outcome Probabilities [View article]
    My article is completely accurate as to my opinion. As to facts that are going to occur in the future, no, I'm not a time traveler. And, yes, I was very neutral throughout my analysis of this case, as eventually the truth will come out. I didn't take a position until the trial was virtually over and then I did so based on my opinion of what the outcome would be. I haven't been emotionally invested in this case at all, and am still not. It's a very small position.
    Nov 1 12:14 PM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Analysis Of Oral Argument In Vringo Vs. Google Patent Infringement Appeal [View article]
    Lawyers are limited to the facts. No matter how good of a lawyer you are, you can't change them. This is why it's not generally correct to judge an attorney's competence by whether they won or lost a case.
    May 7 04:18 PM | 6 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
  • Vringo: How To Lose At Winning [View article]
    I don't believe "When the stock hit a top of a mere $5.86 early in the session" is accurate. The high yesterday was only $5.45.
    Jan 30 10:40 AM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • ParkerVision V. Qualcomm: Daubert Ruling And First Week Of Trial [View article]
    Even wikipedia http://bit.ly/1gGsCqc says you've had a personal hatred of Parkervision since 2005. Care to tell us why? What did they do to you?
    Oct 15 12:29 AM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
378 Comments
414 Likes