Seeking Alpha

Dustin Moore

View as an RSS Feed
View Dustin Moore's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest comments  |  Highest rated
  • Turnaround Happening At magicJack [View article]
    All true Jeff. I did buy a small amount recently as the price seemed to have found a bottom. IF they can turn things around even a little, there is plenty of room upwards with such depressed valuations.

    I will be watching the Telefónica deal closely as I think that has the most potential in the mid-term, rather than app monetization.
    $CALL has NEVER formally sold MJ devices outside the US...until now. Telefónica will purchase devices from us branded as magicJackGO and sell into 4,000 proprietary Movistar mobile retail stores. It’s also anticipated that Telefónica will act as our distribution partner selling the magicJackGO to an incremental 5,000 third-party retail doors such as Wal-Mart and Copal in Mexico.
    Aug 30 12:38 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Turnaround Happening At magicJack [View article]
    One issue I'm the active user base DROPPED Q/Q, as did the rate of downloads as well. Management blames this on making users register. But if asking users to register for free caused such a drop, what will these users do when the company starts asking them for money to use the app?

    That said, much risk is removed at these prices and, if they can stop the bleeding, there is decent upside.
    Aug 19 08:53 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • USPTO Director: Examiner Must Address VirnetX Expert [View instapost]
    Yes. He is 0 for 4
    You can't seriously disagree with someone point by point for 130 pages straight.
    In fact, in the case of Cisco, on a few claims his rationale was so far removed from the original rejection that the Director considered it a new rejection entirely and is forcing him to re-respond there as well.
    Feb 28 05:02 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Supreme Court to rule on software patents [View news story]
    VirnetX's patents are a far-cry from the patents at hand in CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice. Those patents merely describe a negotiation process that human have previously done and then state that that process implemented via a computer. Little underlying inventive concept exists.
    A generic process was patented under the cloak of a "machine" that does said negotiation.

    A SCOTUS ruling would have to be far, far more aggressive against software patents than the Fed Circ to have any meaningful impact on VirnetX. Very, very remote IMO
    Dec 6 03:48 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX Quietly Expands Its Multi-Billion Dollar Patent Arsenal [View article]
    Surprise. Surprise.
    VirnetX filed lawsuit against Apple with new patent. Here are the claims:
    I'm telling you, VirnetX is specifically writing new patents to encircle Apple's infringing products and pin them down. There will be new patents added in the coming weeks...
    Aug 6 10:20 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Erickson Air-Crane Updates Guidance: Why Shares Should Be Valued At $40-$60 [View article]
    It's a math equation. Earnings are going up, stock price should follow.
    May 14 09:03 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Acacia Research's Earnings Were Terrible - And Why You Should Be Buying Now [View article]
    Now we have 2 more reasons to love this investment even more.

    2%+ on your money in dividends, in addition to the massive growth potential

    $100M buyback on the arsenal
    Apr 23 09:38 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 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
  • 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
  • Apple Sanctioned In VirnetX Patent Case For Obstructing 'Unfavorable Testimony' [View article]
    Much appreciated.
    Aug 9 11:34 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple Sanctioned In VirnetX Patent Case For Obstructing 'Unfavorable Testimony' [View article]
    The engineer was asked because he was the developer of the infringing product (VPN On Demand) and he is listed on the corresponding patent as the inventor. He should be well aware of the technology he invented. He agreed he invented the DNS-triggered VPN. Thus VirnetX was asking if the still though that after reading their patent (applied for years before he tried).
    Aug 9 11:33 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX Vs. Apple In Patent Battle: ITC Launches Investigation; Represents Major Shift [View article]
    "Previous cases have no bearing on this case."

    Not sure what you are getting at. It clearly has bearing (perhaps not legally, but lets be honest, in all practicallity). The patents are of the same family for starters. If Apple settles the ITC case, they would obviously settle the federal case as well. So, yes, it has bearing.

    "the truth remains that no one is required by any mandate to license VirnetX technology "

    I agree.
    Nobody is saying they are going to "force" anyone to do anything. QCOM has essential patents...nobody can force other companies to license, but QCOM will come after you if you don't (and has in the past).
    The same applies to VirnetX. Nobody will "force" them to license, but that doesn't mean the patents aren't essential to comply with a standard. That is why they are in court in the first place-to force licensing on infringing parties.
    Dec 5 12:47 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 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.
    Dec 5 11:14 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Elephant Talk and Mobile Wallets - The Next Trillion Dollar Revolution [View article]
    Jun 2 12:55 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX Opens Door to Licensing Its Multi-Billion Dollar 4G Patents [View article]
    "VirnetX released a statement announcing themselves as a patentholder."

    Right. But in this statement they also agreed to the ETSI plea to license under RAND terms. (as opposed to partnering, developing on their own). The ETSI will notify their members that the licenses are now available and they must license to comply to 4G standards.
    Mar 29 02:04 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment