Seeking Alpha

SteveKimLaw

View as an RSS Feed
View SteveKimLaw's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Document Security Systems: Patent Litigation Against Facebook And LinkedIn [View article]
    All good points, Rick.

    I think a very important takeaway is that individual articles may only address one or more, but not necessarily all, factors that may impact valuation. Those of us who are thinking of putting our hard earned money into the stock market are certainly well advised to take heed of all relevant factors. Thanks for the reminder to us all.
    Jul 5 04:24 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Document Security Systems: Patent Litigation Against Facebook And LinkedIn [View article]
    Well said, Rick. However, if you look at my articles, I don't try to guess at values. I try to create some context for analyzing the who's and what's of litigation. That's really all I try to bite off. You did a pretty darned good job of discussing the dilution issue, much better than I would have done, so I'm glad you added those comments.

    Aloha,
    Steve.
    Jul 3 12:16 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Document Security Systems: Patent Litigation Against Facebook And LinkedIn [View article]
    The settlements occurred during the second quarter. But for the merger, any revenues received would be reported on LTG's 2nd Q financials. Due to the merger, I believe these revenues will be reported as part of DSS' 2nd Q earnings. Also, recall that the Complaint alleged past damages as well, and while the press releases regarding the settlements were silent as to past damages, there is at least a reasonable chance that some figure was agreed as to past damages as well, which could also show up in the 2nd Q earnings report, or later, depending on the timing of payment or accrual.
    Jul 2 01:00 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Document Security Systems: Patent Litigation Against Facebook And LinkedIn [View article]
    I agree, Justin.
    Jul 2 12:54 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Document Security Systems: Patent Litigation Against Facebook And LinkedIn [View article]
    Yes, I am still waiting on Judge Jackson along with the rest of us.
    Jul 2 05:59 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Document Security Systems: Patent Litigation Against Facebook And LinkedIn [View article]
    Hi, Justin. My thoughts haven't changed on Vringo. I think Judge Jackson will eventually get around to ruling on the running royalty motion, and there is little reason to think he will do anything other than to award Vringo at least 3% on the 20% royalty base shown at trial, although I think everybody agrees on this point the percentage could be shifted upward a point or more. I am still following Vringo, and I am still holding all my long positions. I don't think I've sold a single Vringo share, although I have had a few option positions that burned to the ground as the post-trial process lurched along.
    Jul 2 05:58 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Document Security Systems: Patent Litigation Against Facebook And LinkedIn [View article]
    Exactly. The offset of the diluted shares is that the post-merger DSS has a pretty potent patent portfolio that is already being monetized, and has greater potential out there in FB and LNKD. Plus, I think bringing the LTG legal and licensing team to DSS can only increase the value of DSS' ongoing litigation against Coupons.com.
    Jul 1 10:52 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Document Security Systems: Patent Litigation Against Facebook And LinkedIn [View article]
    Hi, Rick.

    I'm not sure I understand why you feel I should have discussed dilution issues in this article? I wrote to begin to address the status and potential stakes of the Bascom litigation to DSS, because I think that litigation is going to be significant to DSS' post-merger business plan. Impact of dilution on the post-merger share price may be an appropriate article for somebody else to write, but frankly, I think it's a bit of a dead horse since the merger has closed and the share price is where it is.

    I agree with you that it's important to be familiar with "all the available details" when making an investing decision. For me, the important details are that the stock is trading at $1.97 after hours tonight, and that the company is controlling patents that have the potential for astronomical value. Two of the five defendants in the Bascom cases have capitulated with 4 and 5% royalty agreements, and I suspect they entered into those agreements based on an analysis of the value of the patents to them, and their likelihood of prevailing in the long term. I think that is quite instructive to us not only as to the strength of those patents, but more importantly, DSS' ability to monetize those patents into current income generating vehicles. From what I understand, the effect of those royalty agreements will begin to show up in the 2nd Q earnings reports, and then more so in the 3rd Q. By then, we should have a much better idea about what is going to happen with FB and LNKD, since the Markman hearings are currently scheduled for early October. I'm pretty sanguine about those timelines when I know that the Bascom patents have already begun to generate royalty income from the recent settlements.
    Jul 1 10:48 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Document Security Systems: Patent Litigation Against Facebook And LinkedIn [View article]
    I'm guessing you will have a chance in the morning! This looks like it will be a fun ride.
    Jul 1 05:06 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Document Security Systems: Patent Litigation Against Facebook And LinkedIn [View article]
    It does seem as though DSS shares are "on sale" at the moment. I am guessing there is some stock shakeout occurring with some institutional investor who may not have been in favor of the recent LTG merger. The crazy thing is that the LTG merger did not diminish value, but IMO, added significant value to DSS. DSS already has a pending enforcement lawsuit against coupons.com, and I would think that litigation will only benefit from having LTG take the reins, as that is exactly what those guys do. I definitely view today's decline as creating a great entry point, or reducing average cost basis.
    Jul 1 04:37 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Document Security Systems: Patent Litigation Against Facebook And LinkedIn [View article]
    I am establishing a long position in DSS.
    Jul 1 04:30 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Google Claims To Have Defeated Vringo Search Patents [View article]
    Yes, very clearly over the top. What was intended is that QE represents a party to fabrication. Google has consistently taken positions that have not been borne out in the litigation, whether by judge or jury. Specifically, their analysis was that their existing operations did not infringe on the Lang patents. They put a lot of eggs in that basket, and they were very sorely mistaken. So given their demonstrated ability to discern infringing behavior from non-infringing behavior, it's hard to put any particular stock in their current statement that their so-called workaround doesn't infringe.

    The point is, I'm more interested in Dr. Frieder's infringement analysis than QE's.
    Apr 19 02:15 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Google Claims To Have Defeated Vringo Search Patents [View article]
    Just resting my weary joints. Still following the story, although in reality, the only story that is really left at this point is determination of the future royalties. The rest of this stuff seems to me to be mainly water cooler conversation until real news hits.
    Apr 17 01:39 AM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Google Claims To Have Defeated Vringo Search Patents [View article]
    QE may not be a party to a fabrication. But they represent one.
    Apr 17 01:32 AM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Google Claims To Have Defeated Vringo Search Patents [View article]
    It should go without saying, but I would urge you not to take QE at their word. They are lawyers, paid to create and advocate legal positions. Thus, when they say they have created a workaround, my knee jerk reaction is that they have made some "changes" to the code that most likely either (1) don't alter the infringement analysis; or (2) sacrifice ad matching efficiency. Worse (for Google), their alleged workaround could do both, i.e., cause poorer results and still infringe. Remember, there is a reason that Google themselves in their own internal memos referred to their own system as "DumbAds" (sic) and Vringo's system as "SmartAds" (sic). Remember, not long ago, Google and QE were stamping their feet and insisting their system didn't infringe. Do you really think they have invented a better mousetrap? Just because QE says so?
    Apr 17 01:30 AM | 17 Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
461 Comments
602 Likes