VirnetX Vs. Apple In Patent Battle: ITC Launches Investigation; Represents Major Shift [View article]
"So far, I've yet to hear a solid argument for 1% or above, given the Microsoft case as the only tangible reference point"
If you insist on using the .28% with MSFT (which I think is very misleading), it is easy understand why this number is higher now. I will give you 3 reasons.
1. VirnetX was in serious danger running out of funds to fight Microsoft. They defeated them in federal court, but if MSFT dragged the case out there would be a concern they wouldn't be able to continue to fight. The settlement came about with VirnetX low on funds. That is not the case now. 2. VirnetX IP has been further validated now. More patents have been granted since 2010. Also, Apple et al are violating many patents (MSFT only 2 at the time). 3. The IP has since become essential for the implementation of a standard. Before MSFT was using the patented methods because they were the best, but now it will be mandatory.
These are reasons to believe the royalty rate will be higher. Also, see other company rates with essential IP.
VirnetX Vs. Apple In Patent Battle: ITC Launches Investigation; Represents Major Shift [View article]
It is fairly simple. That is important because it means many companies are infringing or will soon be infringing as they move to 4G LTE-A. It also means Apple will continue to infringe and they will owe VirnetX not only for the current products, but future royalties as well.
Lithium: The Energy Commodity Of The Future [View article]
Mitsubishi and others have made such predictions, not me. Yes, many see the opportunity lithium and have begun projects to recover the material. Some will be successful, but many of the planned projects are unproven (economically) and will take years to come online.
If battery-powered cars take hold quickly, lithium will be in very high demand.
"Clayton Valley or Silver Peak, Nevada has been producing Lithium since 1966. The concentration of Lithium has fallen from 360mg/l ppm to 230mg/l today...production is now in decline..."
http://bit.ly/thd0Y3 "The deposits in Nevada are in decline and many older Lithium deposits in the USA are now uneconomic. About 9,000 tonnes of Li2CO3 are produced in the USA per annum"
That may change as the prices, margins, and demand entice people to search for more sources (which is evident over the past few years). But these new sources will takes years to produce.
VirnetX (VHC -16.8%) crashes after the USPTO grants requests from Apple (AAPL) and Cisco (CSCO), both of whom VirnetX is suing, to reexamine one of its patents. VirnetX says it welcome the USPTO's move, though this simply appears to be an attempt to save face. (patent filing) [View news story]
Not likely, but it is impossible to say.
VirnetX has until early Dec. to respond to the opening of the reexam.
Apple/Cisco have 2 months after that to respond. After this, they no longer participate in the process.
If the USPTO still has issues/questions they will work with VirnetX on them.
So, in the end, it is up to the USPTO examiner when this will be completed, as well as how quickly (or slowly) both sides respond.
VirnetX (VHC -16.8%) crashes after the USPTO grants requests from Apple (AAPL) and Cisco (CSCO), both of whom VirnetX is suing, to reexamine one of its patents. VirnetX says it welcome the USPTO's move, though this simply appears to be an attempt to save face. (patent filing) [View news story]
If the commissioner decides that there is a substantial question of patentability, the reexamination will proceed. [This is where we are at with the VirnetX re-exam] The patent holder is given at least two months to present any arguments or amendments concerning the new prior art. {VirnetX will likely respond a bit sooner} If the reexamination results from a third party request, the PTO will give the third party at most two months to provide a reply to the arguments and amendments offered by the patent holder. At this point, the third party’s participation in the reexamination stops.
VirnetX and the examiner will go back an forth with filings and interviews.
VirnetX can appeal any decision. Apple and Cisco CANNOT.
VirnetX (VHC -16.8%) crashes after the USPTO grants requests from Apple (AAPL) and Cisco (CSCO), both of whom VirnetX is suing, to reexamine one of its patents. VirnetX says it welcome the USPTO's move, though this simply appears to be an attempt to save face. (patent filing) [View news story]
Most reexam requests are granted..so it is hard to read too much into the USPTO decision to open up the reexam on VHC patents.
Elephant Talk's ValidSoft Could Save The Financial Industry Billions [View article]
I'm not sure if very low transactions would qualify. The company hasn't said they wouldn't, but I can see how it makes sense. Just a few days ago Elephant Talk stated in a presentation:
"ValidSoft will charge $.07-22 per transaction verification, depending on volume. Margin 50-60%"
They don't imply it would go below seven cents, but it isn't entirely clear I suppose. Interestingly, ValidSoft has never previously (that I am aware) commented specifically on how much they would charge per transaction. It makes me think that this is the range has come about from negotiations...
I don't think there are "numerous" ED options for men now or in the near future. There are oral treatments that are largely the same and that is about it as far as medicine.
Vitaros is the first topical treatment cleared by a health agency. It can be used by all men suffering from ED, unlike current treatments. Health Canada would not have approved the drug if the side effects were a major issue.
I agree the erection enhancing condom looks promising....however, this is a different market than Vitaros is targeting and isn't as beneficial.
1. You must always use a condom to get the benefits. Many men do not want to wear condoms for pleasure or comfort reasons. Others may be in a monogamous relationship or married and have no real need to wear condoms. 2. The effects of the condom on erections are marginal. If you are having a problem getting an erection, putting a condom on to get an erection sounds like quite the challenge. The gel within the condom is more of an "enhancement". 3. The condom "isn't being marketed so much to men who can't get an erection, but rather men who lose it once they slip on birth control."
Network-1's Key PoE Patent Should Lead to Great Things [View article]
Thanks for the contribution triumph03. I have a couple of questions:
"Any consideration of Network-1's future value should take into account the likelihood that the patent will be found to be invalid..."
Why were Cisco and others unable to prove the patent invalid in the past?
"IEEE records show that each milestone reached by the group was followed immediately by a new application or amendment by Merlot."
This is something I was unaware of. I'll have to look into this specific instance more. However, under US patent law, inventors can apply for new applications for new patents (under a parent patent) to modify or add to their inventions as their original inventions are modified/tweaked by those in the industry. This prevents people from trying to work around a basic invention or idea to avoid paying for its use. Thus, if Merlot filed for the patent and the IEEE group was using the same basic idea but making changes, Merlot has the right to modify the patent or file for new child patents accordingly.
VirnetX Vs. Apple In Patent Battle: ITC Launches Investigation; Represents Major Shift [View article]
If you insist on using the .28% with MSFT (which I think is very misleading), it is easy understand why this number is higher now. I will give you 3 reasons.
1. VirnetX was in serious danger running out of funds to fight Microsoft. They defeated them in federal court, but if MSFT dragged the case out there would be a concern they wouldn't be able to continue to fight. The settlement came about with VirnetX low on funds. That is not the case now.
2. VirnetX IP has been further validated now. More patents have been granted since 2010. Also, Apple et al are violating many patents (MSFT only 2 at the time).
3. The IP has since become essential for the implementation of a standard. Before MSFT was using the patented methods because they were the best, but now it will be mandatory.
These are reasons to believe the royalty rate will be higher. Also, see other company rates with essential IP.
VirnetX Vs. Apple In Patent Battle: ITC Launches Investigation; Represents Major Shift [View article]
The Truth About Vitaros [View article]
Lithium: The Energy Commodity Of The Future [View article]
Lithium: The Energy Commodity Of The Future [View article]
If battery-powered cars take hold quickly, lithium will be in very high demand.
Lithium: The Energy Commodity Of The Future [View article]
Lithium: The Energy Commodity Of The Future [View article]
Per Meridian International Research"
http://bit.ly/rX0lGn
"Clayton Valley or Silver Peak, Nevada has been producing Lithium since 1966. The concentration of Lithium has fallen from 360mg/l ppm to 230mg/l today...production is now in decline..."
http://bit.ly/thd0Y3
"The deposits in Nevada are in decline and many older Lithium deposits in the USA are now uneconomic.
About 9,000 tonnes of Li2CO3 are produced in the USA per annum"
That may change as the prices, margins, and demand entice people to search for more sources (which is evident over the past few years). But these new sources will takes years to produce.
Lithium: The Energy Commodity Of The Future [View article]
VirnetX (VHC -16.8%) crashes after the USPTO grants requests from Apple (AAPL) and Cisco (CSCO), both of whom VirnetX is suing, to reexamine one of its patents. VirnetX says it welcome the USPTO's move, though this simply appears to be an attempt to save face. (patent filing) [View news story]
VirnetX has until early Dec. to respond to the opening of the reexam.
Apple/Cisco have 2 months after that to respond. After this, they no longer participate in the process.
If the USPTO still has issues/questions they will work with VirnetX on them.
So, in the end, it is up to the USPTO examiner when this will be completed, as well as how quickly (or slowly) both sides respond.
VirnetX (VHC -16.8%) crashes after the USPTO grants requests from Apple (AAPL) and Cisco (CSCO), both of whom VirnetX is suing, to reexamine one of its patents. VirnetX says it welcome the USPTO's move, though this simply appears to be an attempt to save face. (patent filing) [View news story]
[This is where we are at with the VirnetX re-exam]
The patent holder is given at least two months to present any arguments or amendments concerning the new prior art. {VirnetX will likely respond a bit sooner} If the reexamination results from a third party request, the PTO will give the third party at most two months to provide a reply to the arguments and amendments offered by the patent holder. At this point, the third party’s participation in the reexamination stops.
VirnetX and the examiner will go back an forth with filings and interviews.
VirnetX can appeal any decision. Apple and Cisco CANNOT.
VirnetX (VHC -16.8%) crashes after the USPTO grants requests from Apple (AAPL) and Cisco (CSCO), both of whom VirnetX is suing, to reexamine one of its patents. VirnetX says it welcome the USPTO's move, though this simply appears to be an attempt to save face. (patent filing) [View news story]
Elephant Talk's ValidSoft Could Save The Financial Industry Billions [View article]
"ValidSoft will charge $.07-22 per transaction verification, depending on volume. Margin 50-60%"
They don't imply it would go below seven cents, but it isn't entirely clear I suppose. Interestingly, ValidSoft has never previously (that I am aware) commented specifically on how much they would charge per transaction. It makes me think that this is the range has come about from negotiations...
Elephant Talk's ValidSoft Could Save The Financial Industry Billions [View article]
The Truth About Vitaros [View article]
Vitaros is the first topical treatment cleared by a health agency. It can be used by all men suffering from ED, unlike current treatments. Health Canada would not have approved the drug if the side effects were a major issue.
I agree the erection enhancing condom looks promising....however, this is a different market than Vitaros is targeting and isn't as beneficial.
1. You must always use a condom to get the benefits. Many men do not want to wear condoms for pleasure or comfort reasons. Others may be in a monogamous relationship or married and have no real need to wear condoms.
2. The effects of the condom on erections are marginal. If you are having a problem getting an erection, putting a condom on to get an erection sounds like quite the challenge. The gel within the condom is more of an "enhancement".
3. The condom "isn't being marketed so much to men who can't get an erection, but rather men who lose it once they slip on birth control."
Vitaros is for men suffering from ED.
Network-1's Key PoE Patent Should Lead to Great Things [View article]
"Any consideration of Network-1's future value should take into account the likelihood that the patent will be found to be invalid..."
Why were Cisco and others unable to prove the patent invalid in the past?
"IEEE records show that each milestone reached by the group was followed immediately by a new application or amendment by Merlot."
This is something I was unaware of. I'll have to look into this specific instance more. However, under US patent law, inventors can apply for new applications for new patents (under a parent patent) to modify or add to their inventions as their original inventions are modified/tweaked by those in the industry. This prevents people from trying to work around a basic invention or idea to avoid paying for its use. Thus, if Merlot filed for the patent and the IEEE group was using the same basic idea but making changes, Merlot has the right to modify the patent or file for new child patents accordingly.