Seeking Alpha

Dustin Moore

View as an RSS Feed
View Dustin Moore's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • VirnetX Begins Cornering Apple In Patent Fight [View article]
    "my main point was that the current litigation is just the tip of the iceberg for VirnetX. I think the real money is in the 4G LTE category"

    Thanks for the contribution David. Excellent points. I see what you're saying now and totally agree. I think you're right about us splitting hairs. We were saying the same thing, just speaking different languages :-)
    Feb 20 12:54 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX Begins Cornering Apple In Patent Fight [View article]
    Withglee, the comment below was targeted at davidg13. Not sure why it moved down under your comment.

    Anyway, thanks for contributing. You have a lot here to respond to! So I'll go piece by piece. All in my opinion obviously.

    I think your basic assumptions on how the law works (your A/B scenarios) are incorrect. You then run examples based of those assumptions.

    For instance, you pose the question "If the "defendant fails" in this case does it set law and thus all defendants fail in all future cases regarding the same issue?"
    and the say "an unbeatable strategy for the plaintif is to find a weak defendant who cannot defend himself and win the case, setting law, and screwing all future deserving strong defendants."

    But the answer to your first question is no, so the rational for the second part doesn't make sense.

    For example, if VirnetX gets a final judgement by law against Apple (certainly not a weak or underfunded legal opponent) regarding validity over prior art, this does not "screw" Cisco. Cisco has every legal right to argue invalidity, even in regards to the same prior art references. Just because a weaker defendant loses a case, it does not preclude others from arguing the exact same defenses to an unbiased jury (even if they were losing ones). So the patent owner is actually the one left to continue protecting its IP in regards to the same issues, even if it already proven itself in the court of law. A judgement by law in this case prevents Apple from bringing up the same issues multiple times, but the judgement does not apply to other defendants.

    Hope that makes sense.
    Feb 20 12:09 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX Begins Cornering Apple In Patent Fight [View article]
    Thanks for disagreeing respectfully. I'm always up for a debate! What specifically are you referring to?
    I agree there is more to the company, but I guess I'm referring to the fact that intellectual property/licensing makes up the vast majority of the business at this point *IMHO of course*. SEC classifies them as PATENT OWNERS & LESSORS and in the recent 10-Q "...our business strategy will depend on intellectual property licensing fees and royalties for the majority of our revenues".
    Feb 20 11:14 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX Begins Cornering Apple In Patent Fight [View article]
    Thanks all for making this a top article of the day on SeekingAlpha!
    Feb 20 10:26 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX Begins Cornering Apple In Patent Fight [View article]
    VirnetX’s lawyers appear to hint at a time frame of about 2-3 months, but it is unclear if they are referring to the just Apple's final ruling or Cisco's as well.
    They also argue in the petition however, that certain invalidity arguments are already truth by law (and cannot be appealed). Thus, at least in regards to those specific invalidity arguments, the final ruling is just a formality.
    Feb 20 09:53 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX Begins Cornering Apple In Patent Fight [View article]
    Good to hear you found value in it. Greatly appreciated.
    Feb 20 09:48 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX Begins Cornering Apple In Patent Fight [View article]
    Great question.
    They can appeal a variety of things. For example, they can appeal the verdict of invalidity re: Kiuchi or they could appeal that VirnetX did not present/calculate damages properly and thus the jury's damages number was flawed.

    However, VirnetX argues here that what they cannot appeal is anything regarding invalidity from all of the other prior art references on the asserted claims. Since they did not oppose (as a matter of law that don't invalidate the claims), they can't appeal that. So it is effectively a final ruling and they cannot continue to argue these at the Office.
    Feb 20 09:46 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX Begins Cornering Apple In Patent Fight [View article]
    whoops. Late nights putting this together...I hope you still enjoyed. I have linked the petitions, orders, etc. to make the documents more accessible and easier to locate the relevant parts of them.
    Feb 20 08:11 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX Begins Cornering Apple In Patent Fight [View article]
    Thanks jsteven. That was the overall goal. Glad you enjoyed!
    Feb 20 07:59 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Pres. Obama isn't a fan of patent trolls. "They are essentially trying to leverage and hijack somebody else's idea and see if they can extort some money," Obama stated during a Google+ hangout. He added, "Our efforts at patent reform are only about halfway to where we need to go." The remarks come as the DOJ and FTC hold hearings on patent trolls, and an appeals court debates whether software should be patentable. Some IP holders accused of being patent trolls: ACTG, VRNG, RMBS, VHC, IDCC, WILN[View news story]
    1. I'm not sure what is wrong with going to court over someone stealing your IP...that is the point of getting a patent, to protect your ideas from being stolen.
    2. As far as VirnetX $VHC, that company is made up of the inventors themselves, so not sure how they can be defined as a patent troll.
    Feb 15 02:26 PM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Truth About Vitaros [View article]
    Might interest you...
    $APRI Vitaros presentation shows saftey profile/clinically sustained improvement for patients with ED http://bit.ly/Un1gI3
    Dec 13 11:49 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • MagicJack Stock Has Doubled In 2012...And It's Still Cheap [View article]
    Thanks for the input on the product.
    Did you see the press release yesterday? They will now exceed $2 a share this year, growing revs 40%+ yoy. This gives them a PE of less than 10 and an even smaller forward PE for 2013. All while the company is purchasing shares.
    Nov 10 01:24 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX Vs. Apple: Keys Developments Leading Up To The Battle [View article]
    Just to make it official :)
    http://bit.ly/T4scNx
    Nov 7 04:18 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX Vs. Apple: Keys Developments Leading Up To The Battle [View article]
    Trial going far better than I expected. Evidence clearly favored VirnetX.

    EVERY person I spoke with (even if they weren't VirnetX investors or had any affiliation) thought VirnetX will win after watching. Hopefully a jury will concur. All coming down to damages at this point IMO. We'll find out in the coming days.
    Nov 6 10:07 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX Vs. Apple: Keys Developments Leading Up To The Battle [View article]
    It doesn't need to go that high in the courts to validate claims.
    Nov 5 11:17 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
260 Comments
136 Likes