Seeking Alpha

Daniel B. Ravicher

 
View Daniel B. Ravicher's Comments BY TICKER:
  • Analysis Of Oral Argument In Vringo Vs. Google Patent Infringement Appeal [View article]
    No, they didn't need to, because no one worries they won't have the cash to pay the awarded judgment. $31M is nothing to them, so there's no risk they'll be broke when it comes time to pay.
    May 8, 2014. 03:54 PM | 1 Like 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, 2014. 04:55 PM | 8 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Analysis Of Oral Argument In Vringo Vs. Google Patent Infringement Appeal [View article]
    My position in the mentioned stock. Without some new developments, I am highly unlikely to change my opinion on the hearing and projected outcome of the appeal.
    May 7, 2014. 04:20 PM | 3 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, 2014. 04:18 PM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 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, 2014. 04:17 PM | 22 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, 2014. 04:15 PM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Analysis Of Oral Argument In Vringo Vs. Google Patent Infringement Appeal [View article]
    Judge Mayer is a notorious dissenter, especially on 101 issues. His views do not represent the opinion of the majority of judges on the Court of Appeals.
    May 7, 2014. 04:12 PM | 5 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, 2014. 04:09 PM | 9 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Google Flip Flops, Concedes Vringo Entitled To Ongoing Royalties [View article]
    For readers of this article, please see my followup article from today, "Did Vringo Traders Overreact To Google's Flip Flop?" at http://seekingalpha.co....
    Jan 4, 2013. 06:58 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
More on GOOG by Daniel B. Ravicher
COMMENTS STATS
378 Comments
416 Likes