Seeking Alpha

Dustin Moore

 
View as an RSS Feed
View Dustin Moore's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Acacia Research's Earnings Were Terrible - And Why You Should Be Buying Now [View article]
    Great points as usual LightSeedVC.
    I had a ton of these on my list as well. And some I did not. Thanks for those. You have clearly done your homework!
    I would also add the the new verticals the company has entered should drive growth. Medical device patents were licensed with no litigation (ie low enforcement costs) and paid for themselves almost entirely on the first license alone. They also report little competition in that space.
    FYI my earnings "terrible" comment was facetious. Drop in valuation is overdone IMO.
    Apr 22 02:59 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Acacia Research's Earnings Were Terrible - And Why You Should Be Buying Now [View article]
    Thanks Volte-Face.
    Agreed. Interesting comment about the at least ten vs "10s" I will look into that.

    Unfortunately, there is a ton of information that I had to omit from this article for length purposes.

    For example, I would urge investors to look into the growth and development of the company's medical device licensing arm as a large growth driver for 2013. There appears to be very little competition in this field.
    Apr 22 02:51 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple Says It Is Willing To Throw The Baby Out With The Bath Water Over Royalties [View article]
    Thanks for sharing your insight here.

    However, I do differ in my interpretation of Apple's change to VPN on Demand.

    "Apple is essentially now admitting that it was using VirnetX's patented technology; however in court Apple swore under oath that it wasn't?"

    I don't exactly see Apple changing VPN On Demand functionality as admitting guilt.
    The jury found Apple infringing VirnetX patents with said product. Thus, Apple is changing the way it functions. It doesn't mean that it is admitting wrong-doing or that it can't (or won't) continue to fight what I assume they believe is an erroneous judgement.
    Changing the way it functions could be used tactically during negotiations to show the patents are not as valuable (as they can be "worked around") or that Apple shouldn't be paying a ongoing royalty for something it is no longer using. Perhaps the change could be to prevent any willful charge against them for releasing a new OS that had the same functions, despite a clear jury verdict saying that code infringes.

    Just my 2 cents.
    Apr 8 11:15 AM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Peru Sale Ups Asset Pricing Strength And Target To $12.11 [View article]
    Great update again here. I agree the value of these assets makes the stock attractive, even in light of a poor biz execution over the past few years.

    Also, just to clarify, this was stated on the Q4 conf call as well:
    "We will realign our resources across our markets in order to deliver results especially in our core markets of Brazil and Mexico."

    Regardless, this is definitely a key change in strategy and should continue to build value for investors at these price levels.
    Apr 6 02:25 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • NII Holdings: A Buy And A Squeeze To $10.86 [View article]
    Thanks for the update and insight on NIHD Tufenk.
    Apr 3 11:49 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX Begins Cornering Apple In Patent Fight [View article]
    :-) Thanks man. Greatly appreciate the comment!
    Feb 26 10:51 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX Vs. Apple: Viability Of Apple Workaround To Avoid A Permanent Injunction [View article]
    Very good analysis here. It's articles like this that help investors make better, more informed investment decisions.
    Feb 24 05:12 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX Begins Cornering Apple In Patent Fight [View article]
    Is there anything content specific you think is inaccurate about my analysis? Or are you just taking the time to hint generally that there could be?
    I wrote this piece to provide information to the investor community that they may find helpful in making their investment decisions. I’m focused on finding information to make better investment decisions and uncovering information that the general investment community may not be aware of. While I try to make my articles typo free, I'm far more concerned about conducting in-depth research and ensuring the analysis is accurate in that respect. I’m less worried about the placement of an apostrophe. If your judgment of the value of my analysis is based off of proofreading, rather than the content, then that is your prerogative. I assure you that the most helpful investment articles, tweets, or newsletters are not always the most eloquent or those with the best grammar, but those with great content.
    Feb 23 05:54 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX Begins Cornering Apple In Patent Fight [View article]
    Ha. My apologies. My normal editor/reviewer did not have time to look at this and I do tend to read over my own mistakes...I also tend to focus more on my research with a piece like this. I saw some on my last reread as well. I hope it doesn't reflect too poorly on me and you still found value in the content and analysis.
    Feb 20 11:22 PM | 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]
    I think this article may be relevant to this discussion. VirnetX attempts to corner Apple in patent fight:
    http://seekingalpha.co...
    Feb 20 10:39 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX Begins Cornering Apple In Patent Fight [View article]
    Thanks!
    Feb 20 10:30 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX Begins Cornering Apple In Patent Fight [View article]
    "VirnetX secured a jury verdict that Apple was infringing its patents and owed the company $368.2 million."

    Umm not following you. Wrong company? Did you click the link in the article? Can you clarify what are you trying to convey?
    Feb 20 05:11 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX Begins Cornering Apple In Patent Fight [View article]
    Thanks. I always enjoy a read from your work myself.
    Feb 20 12:55 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • 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
COMMENTS STATS
273 Comments
144 Likes