Seeking Alpha

Jeff's WaterWorks

View as an RSS Feed
View Jeff's WaterWorks' Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • VirnetX Vs. Apple At The CAFC: Why VirnetX Seeks En Banc Review, Why Apple Does Not [View article]
    Thin air was not exactly the place I assumed you picked that number from. However to argue against your point I need more information than you have provided, thus the need for citation. You flatter yourself if you think I'm googling your "statistics".
    Oct 24, 2014. 07:49 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX Vs. Apple At The CAFC: Why VirnetX Seeks En Banc Review, Why Apple Does Not [View article]
    User77982971 (put a lot of thought into that name?),

    You are concentrating too much on Apple and their meaning to this company. I believe the company realizes Apple's money is a while still in being in the bank and that there is no reason to settle for a low ball offer, so they are exercising the best legal option and not the most expedient.

    It sounds to me like VirnetX is going full steam ahead with patents found not invalid by the CAFC and seeking strategic partners and willing licensees. For you to not even address the patents and the potential licensees and to concentrate on Apple to determine the value of the stock, you have not done enough due diligence.
    Oct 24, 2014. 06:30 PM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX Vs. Apple At The CAFC: Why VirnetX Seeks En Banc Review, Why Apple Does Not [View article]
    Why do anonymous people citing statistics while commenting on internet message boards almost never cite where their numbers come from? It is always preceded by "I have seen", "statistics show", "everybody knows that", you just simply never see "according to this website or book".
    Oct 24, 2014. 03:44 PM | 8 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX Vs. Apple At The CAFC: Why VirnetX Seeks En Banc Review, Why Apple Does Not [View article]
    Strangely enough, you wrote three hit piece articles about VirnetX, each with multiple factual inaccuracies that were pointed out in the comment sections. None of these inaccuracies were denied or debated by you.

    The only "fact" you point out in my article is your opinion disagreeing with mine, not exactly a debatable fact. Please do what you have yet to do, argue fact, not opinion.

    You still won't even admit that the damages asked for by VirnetX for VPNoD is $708MM although I've pointed it out in black and white on two different forms.
    Oct 24, 2014. 11:27 AM | 21 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX Obfuscates The Truth: Stock Worth Under $1 [View article]
    VHC took the approach that FT alone was worth mid-nine figures in damages, VPNoD alone was worth mid-to-upper-nine figures, and combined (VHC was not asking for a royalty stacking) if both were found to be infringing VHC only wanted the higher of the two numbers for damages. Here is also a portion of the transcript (page A1625 in the appeals joint appendix) that tells it exactly how it is:
    "....13 Q. (By Mr. Cassady) If the jury determined that
    14 only VPN On Demand infringed, what would the damages be?
    15 A. (By Mr. Weinstein) Then the damages would be $708
    million. "

    I make no apologies for taking a "saucy" tone to "authors" who blatantly misrepresent facts. The story for VHC and its long term investors is far from over, so we shall see who is really correct about this company in the future.

    I know nothing of CRDS, but it I think you should study the non-litigation potential of VHC before declaring it a $0.50 stock. If the secure communications link claim construction doesn't get reversed upon a request for rehearing, most likely it will still be found infringing in a retrial. VPNoD damages are still in place and regardless of the lack of literary understanding rampant on this thread there is a very good chance of even higher damages being awarded by the second jury.

    As for your supporting an author who obviously does not research his facts (to be nice), or who distorts the truth for his own potential gain (the readers can decide, not my job) I offer (besides the aforementioned statement about VPNoD damages) the following:

    The author says: "VirnetX claimed that there was infringement going all the way back to the original iPhone and the iPod Touch, both of which were launched in 2007 while the iPad was launched in 2010".

    Again, from the transcript "Judge Davis will ask the jury to decide the
    2 of a reasonable royalty is to pretend, basically, that
    3 the parties -- Apple and VirnetX -- got together in a
    4 room at the time of Apple's first infringement; not
    5 today but back in 2009. " (June of 2009 to be exact).

    The author says: "All four of these patents claim priority to application 60/106,261. This application was filed in October 1998 and since the patents have a 20 year life to them, they expire in 2018."

    The truth of the matter is that each patent usually has additions or subtractions from the 20 years from the filing date of the patent from which they claim priority. It is called a Patent Term Adjustment (PTA), this from the PTO:
    " '211 patent: Total PTA Adjustments: 701" (plus one year, eleven month, five days)
    " '504 patent: Total PTA Adjustments: 646" (plus one year, nine months plus).

    There are more, but my daughter is finally asleep.
    Oct 6, 2014. 12:07 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX Obfuscates The Truth: Stock Worth Under $1 [View article]
    Remedial reading classes may be in order here for the author. His quote from the CAFC states:

    ""This theory yielded a $708 million demand, consisting of $566 million for products including both FaceTime and VPN On Demand, and $142 million for those including only VPN On Demand." (Link)

    And the author states:

    "This section of the CAFC ruling clearly talks about VPN On Demand having significantly less value than FaceTime. If only 25% of damages should have been attributed to VPN On Demand, then the jury award would have been $92.3 million. "

    What is actually happening here is that the VPN on Demand products account for both the $142 million and the $566 million. Do the math $142MM + $$566MM = $706MM. So even without FaceTime, VPN on demand damages are $706MM.

    Makes you wonder how many other "facts" he has misread or misinterpreted (to be polite).
    Oct 1, 2014. 01:25 PM | 15 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX Is Worth Well Under $1 Per Share [View article]
    Nice hit piece. I hope people that read this article do their own due diligence before jumping on your bandwagon.

    Dan Ravicher needs to come along and chide you for not citing most of your sources and hiding behind a pseudonym.
    Sep 17, 2014. 04:47 PM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • How Vringo's Reversal At CAFC Just Increased My Confidence In A VirnetX Affirmation [View article]
    No the case was reversed under the guise of obviousness, not 101. Judge Mayer wrote a consenting opinion on how these patents were so obviously not subject matter eligible a child should see it (even though the judge, jury, USPTO (multiple times), and the defense team did not see it that way). His admonishment of the trial judge for not ruling on it the way the SC wanted still blows me away! That trial took place two years before Alice!

    All I know is what I read, en banc hearings are not convened to adjudicate wrong decisions just because they are wrong. They need to go against other CAFC precedent or SC ruling to even have a chance.
    Aug 18, 2014. 06:10 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • How Vringo's Reversal At CAFC Just Increased My Confidence In A VirnetX Affirmation [View article]
    The CAFC are an appeals board that rules on the things put in front of them, so if somebody appeals that the patent is obvious they review a question of obviousness "de novo". If obviousness is NOT appealed, such as in the case with Apple's appeal (invalidity in light of Kiuchi is Apple's only invalidity argument), they are not even supposed to think about their own opinion on if this is obvious. If they were to do otherwise, every appeal would take years and not months It seems that perhaps judge Mayer did not follow this line of thought in VRNG, because he sure had it out for the patents on 101 grounds.

    VRNG is screwed IMHO because the panel deemed the case nonprecedential. This lowers their chances for en banc even further, to the point of almost nonexistent. The other major concern for VRNG now is that cases are not taken for en banc because the panel got it wrong, but because there was created a precedential conflict in case law of the CAFC, or the SC has made a prior ruling against the opinion's premises. I think it will be a stretch to say that "common sense" rulings will get the attention of the SC, although I think the ruling itself was horrible.
    Aug 18, 2014. 04:29 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • How Vringo's Reversal At CAFC Just Increased My Confidence In A VirnetX Affirmation [View article]

    I studied over two solid years of precedential and nonprecedential opinions from the CAFC and did not find a single example of the opinion going beyond where it could stop. They all say something like, "because we remand (or reverse) for (claim construction, validity, infringement, etc.) we go no further in our decision. If anybody can point to one, I'll change my point of view a bit.

    Also, there is more than anecdotal evidence that the CAFC does not render advisory opinions and therefore they'd be wasting their time to go past the necessary stops.
    Aug 18, 2014. 02:51 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • How Vringo's Reversal At CAFC Just Increased My Confidence In A VirnetX Affirmation [View article]

    Obviousness is not being appealed by Apple and therefore cannot be reviewed by CAFC. After the VRNG dissent, it is apparent to me that Chen is not about to invalidate a patent found not invalid by a jury unless there is overwhelming evidence (and I would suggest Judge Davis's track record would reasonably indicate that he would then have thrown the patents out for MSFT, CSCO, or Apple) nor would Chen sit back and allow Prost to do so. At which point we would have had a tie and a need for a third judge.

    I do find it sad that in the VRNG case Mayer seems to think the claims invalid for 101 reasons, but uses obviousness as his excuse.
    Aug 18, 2014. 02:42 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple Vs. VirnetX: The Federal Circuit Will Affirm Judge Davis [View article]
    In the course of reading the last two plus years of precedential and non-precedential opinions issued by the CAFC, it has become quite apparent to me that the judges take the deliberation in logical order. First they consider if the patent is valid. Next they consider whether or not the patent was truly infringed. If both of these inquiries are affirmative, they will move on to the rest of the arguments, i.e. jury instructions, damages, sanctions, injunctions, fees, etc. If both of the first two inquiries are not met with affirmative answers, then the case is remanded back for a re-trial and the opinion is written. The later situation obviously takes much less time than the former.

    If the later were the case here, the opinion would have been issued long ago and we would not be reading this article. And more than likely, if the later were the case there would have been no mention of VirnetX v. Apple cited in the opinion for Apple v. Motorola on 4/25.

    Over the last 10 or more years, Judge Davis has tried probably as many, if not more, patent cases than any other judge in the US. His track record is beyond exemplary. There is a very slim chance that the first two issues fail VirnetX.
    Aug 13, 2014. 05:37 PM | 16 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX: A CAFC View Through A Clear Lens [View article]
    Prost does NOT dissent about allow the expert's damages testimony in! Here are her words:
    >>> although I arrive at the outcome in a different way, I concur in the majority’s conclusion that the district court’s exclusion of Napper’s testimony must be reversed and remanded on the basis of its erroneous claim construction. <<<

    Also, her argument against the majority's opinion on WHY to let Napper's testimony in is that she would be deferential to the district judge. This further supports VirnetX's cause, not Apple's!!
    Aug 5, 2014. 04:31 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX: A CAFC View Through A Clear Lens [View article]
    >>>2) The Apple Moto cite did not have to do with Nash Bargaining<<<


    In the Fed Supp., the page cited, 839, discusses NOTHING but NBS. Please reconcile that fact with your statement quoted above.

    Here is the link to an IV post that discloses the entirety of page 839, for your benefit:
    Aug 5, 2014. 11:12 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX: A CAFC View Through A Clear Lens [View article]
    Perdix says:

    >>>This excerpt gets to the heart of the matter: "Cases following from Laser Dynamics have emphasized the requirement that the royalty base be the “smallest salable patent-practicing unit” to the effect that the smallest salable unit must be “closely tied to the patent” or else an apportionment of the value of the patent-practicing technology to the alleged infringing product is still required, even if the patentee is not invoking the entire market value rule expressly." (Very unfavorable to VirnetX).<<<

    Judge Davis says:

    >>> VirnetX argues Apple is misconstruing its damages theory, as VirnetX’s primary damages theory sought to determine a reasonable royalty, considering the revenues from the smallest saleable unit of the accused products. Docket No. 632 at 23; see 11/01/12 p.m. TT
    at 124:13–20. VirnetX never disclosed the entire revenue of Apple’s accused devices, but rather used an apportioned base, which excluded roughly 20% of the total revenue from the accused products, when calculating a reasonable royalty. See 11/01/12 p.m. TT at 125:1–22; 128:14–129:8. VirnetX contends it was permissible for its expert to consider the smallest saleable infringing unit when determining the royalty base since the unit had a “close relation to the claimed invention.” Docket No. 623 at 25 (quoting Cornell Univ. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 609
    F. Supp. 2d 279, 288 (N.D. NY 2009); see LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 694 F.3d 51, 67 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

    Apple counters that if VirnetX wished to calculate its royalty based on the smallest saleable patent-practicing unit, VirnetX needed to demonstrate a close relation between the accused devices and the patented inventions, which it failed to do here. Docket No. 636 at 11; see 10/31/12 p.m. TT at 17:5–19:8. However, VirnetX did provide some evidence that the infringing features practicing the patented inventions necessarily utilized other aspects of the accused devices. See 10/31/12 a.m. TT at 66:1–22; 89:9–93:6; 100:3–101:22; 106:19–107:2; 11/01/12 a.m. TT at 47:22–55:18. <<< (Not at all unfavorable for VirnetX).

    Perdix, you also seem to be avoiding the repeated comment that page 839 of the Fed. Supp. (the page cited by the CAFC in the Apple v. Motorola opinion) deals with only one issue, Judge Davis's favorable discussion of the NBS as used by VirnetX.
    Aug 2, 2014. 04:45 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment