Seeking Alpha

Joe Decker's  Instablog

Joe Decker
Send Message
An experienced speculator.
  • $VRNG Filing 203 26 comments
    Aug 7, 2012 8:07 PM | about stocks: VRNG

    From: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/virginia/vaedce/2:2011cv00512/271949/203/

    >>>THIS MATTER COMES to the Court on the stipulation of Counsel for Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc. ("I/P Engine") and Counsel for Defendants Google Inc. and IAC Search and Media, Inc. (collectively "Defendants") that:<<<

    - Means the action was not taken unilaterally by the court but rather upon the request of VRNG, GOOG and IACI.

    >>>For the avoidance of doubt, the patent infringement claims being dismissed explicitly exclude, and I/P Engine explicitly reserves and retains all rights and remedies with respect to, any and all other claims asserted in the present litigation including, without limitation, the patent infringement claims as to Google AdWords, Google AdSense for Search, Google AdSense for Mobile Search and AOL's Search Marketplace.<<<

    Explicitly excluded means all claims listed in above sentence are still in play.

    Sounds like another partial settlement between $VRNG, $GOOG and $IACI has been agreed to out of court.

    Disclosure: I am long VRNG.

    Themes: $VRNG, patent Stocks: VRNG
Back To Joe Decker's Instablog HomePage »

Instablogs are blogs which are instantly set up and networked within the Seeking Alpha community. Instablog posts are not selected, edited or screened by Seeking Alpha editors, in contrast to contributors' articles.

Comments (30)
Track new comments
  • JKenser
    , contributor
    Comments (342) | Send Message
     
    How do you come to that conclusion by reading that? Thanks.
    7 Aug 2012, 08:41 PM Reply Like
  • Joe Decker
    , contributor
    Comments (96) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Ken, I'll assume you are referring to my "sounds like another partial settlement" comment and not the interpretation of the referenced parts of 203.

     

    The fact that the parties agreed to dismiss with prejudice certain claims but not all.

     

    VRNG agreed to never again pursuing claims against Google Search & IAC's Ask Sponsored Listings and GOOG/IACI agreed to drop DI 189 which sought to preclude VRNG from pursuing the same claims.

     

    Both actions effectively do/say the same thing, but law is what it is and records of both requests before the court must be specifically recorded since they were separate requests to the court.

     

    This dismissal is not a "win" for VRNG on the legal side. However it does not mean a settlement on the facts could not have occurred before the dismissal.

     

    The dismissal only means the claim can not come before the court again.

     

    The dismissal does not invalidate legally binding aspects of any prior agreements reached.

     

    So the defendant parties could have effectively said "okay, we have this signed agreement", now before we take the next step, sign the next agreement, we want the part of the suit that deals with what is in this agreement dismissed with prejudice." Effectively 203 would close the settlement process on the parts dismissed by keep the plaintiff from coming back in for a re-attack on the claims.

     

    That is why I said "sounds like" as opposed to "there was/is" another partial settlement.

     

    b/r
    7 Aug 2012, 09:48 PM Reply Like
  • JKenser
    , contributor
    Comments (342) | Send Message
     
    Thanks Joe, what are your thoughts on memorandum 201? It would appear that the court will strike these new claims down as there is precedent set by Google vs. Oracle.. Also, would'nt it be common sense to assume that if Google thought I/P had no case they would'nt need to waste their time with these games? Thanks for your reply..
    8 Aug 2012, 01:36 AM Reply Like
  • Joe Decker
    , contributor
    Comments (96) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Yes, your "2 and 2" math is correct. :)

     

    Though I answered on your other question, the way you worded your question here made me think of something.

     

    I dont see these actions as "court actions", i.e. I don't see it as the court "striking down" claims or motions but rather the court simply saying "okay kids, since you worked 'x' out among yourselves I'll ignore this part of your fight". It may seem a petty distinction, but I mention it because I'm a firm believer in a one's mind set playing a direct role in effecting objectivity. Even small projections or perspectives of thought can effect objectivity, a form of Soros reflexivity if you will.

     

    Likewise, with attempting to understand "the why" of market participants or the company. Not saying I don't do it. But I try to do so only when it deals with a factual, and ideally measurable or quantifiable relationship.

     

    I think many who speculate and fail do so because they think they understand "the why" behind some market action, or they think what they are looking at is being seen by others with similar rational thought regarding similar "why" questions.

     

    Here's an example of what I mean. Take the 20 day simple moving average. The 20dsma is commonly watched by speculators who share a similar time horizon for trades. Usually traders and active non-HFT hedge funds. Long only boys, mutual funds and institutional investors, pay zero attention to the 20dsma. However, the long only boys will "notice" 100 and 200 day moving averages. It is useless for me to ask "why" they do so, they will never tell me anything of value, and their mind can change. Likewise, for the traders/hedge guys on the 20dma.

     

    What matters is that I know they are paying attention at those times and are much more likely to make decisions which either confirm or change their prior thoughts and convictions. So I know it's important to pay attention more so to the behavior/action of the market during those times. The past behavior at these points help me define risk control. But it is by observing without asking "why" that allows me to see more clearly what is important. The conviction of the capital; has it changed or been affirmed?

     

    Sorry about the digression. Just didnt want to leave you thinking my "I dont care about that stuff" answer came from an apathy toward you or your question.

     

    b/r
    8 Aug 2012, 02:27 AM Reply Like
  • JKenser
    , contributor
    Comments (342) | Send Message
     
    Thanks a lot Joe.. You seem to be a very knowledgeable and logical speculator. I have been in the markets for over 10 years and have gone through the trials and tribulations of learning to trade on my own "with real cash," as JL would say.. Not sure why I am asking you this as we have never met but I have always had the conviction that it would be a good move to find a mentor with significant market experience for advice or mainly to keep me grounded in my trading. Would it be too much to ask that we keep in touch? I understand if you are too busy. I have always read that trading on your own without any outside conversation is hard, which is why I have taken to message boards and SA. But I feel a lot of the times getting on those boards is more of a deterrent than a place for conversation as it seems to stir the emotions when a stock makes a move either way. Thanks again for your timely and well thought out posts..
    8 Aug 2012, 11:02 AM Reply Like
  • Joe Decker
    , contributor
    Comments (96) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Understand well your feelings on message boards. I think they can serve a purpose in helping educated people. Even in their unpleasant aspects they are a form of mentor, and serve to be a verbal form of what markets can say more harshly via P&L.

     

    Feel free to reach out. Like you, I am on SA for similar reasons. Please though, I'd ask you to avoid any mentor mindset, with anyone you are not literally standing next to. I am a firm believer in a mentor being of great advantage to one becoming a savvy speculator and/or investor. Especially so for speculators. But in my opinion it is essential to be with the mentor as they go through their thought process; seeing where they are looking and hearing their thoughts while experiencing one's own thoughts and emotions in real-time.

     

    Fyi, I focus mostly on macro and sector areas and products. I do venture into individual stocks from time to time, but the increase in derivative products and other factors have led me to focusing less on individual stocks. I focus on the S&P, 2-3 sectors, and the VIX. Right now my sector focus is on Materials, Precious Metals and Energy [natural gas bias]. A couple of companies include DDD, SSYS & VRNG. Vringo is an exception. I normally wouldn't be involved with such a stock. But not too long ago began working toward taking the Patent Prosecution exam, so she caught my eye. I'll send you a link to a site that represents a library of the works I've read; if find we've read similar works it may promote some efficiency in conversation. Given time constraints I'm sure we both experience, any efficiency would be helpful.

     

    b/r
    8 Aug 2012, 12:24 PM Reply Like
  • JKenser
    , contributor
    Comments (342) | Send Message
     
    Thanks Joe, I understand the mentor aspect. Just have'nt had success in finding anyone where I live. I appreciate your honesty..

     

    As far as my trading goes, I try to have a narrow focus as I believe it makes it easier to understand at my age one sector rather than trying to figure out multiple. i just don't have enough time in my day for that much research.. So I mainly focus on biotechs as it seems for some reason I have a passion for learning about all things medical tech related. I also am looking at companies that have the potential to change the way the healthcare system works. Mostly early start ups as I am in no hurry;) Some stocks i have ownership in are MDGN, NBS, and AMLN before they got bought out. My biggest holding though is MDGN.

     

    I do however as well stray from my comfort zone when an opportunity presents itself and that was the exception with VRNG.
    It seems to me with Ken Lang as the new CTO, there is a good chance that even with a minimal settlement VRNG could be worth much more than it is currently trading. My assessment here is that the risk to reward is very much imbalanced right now.

     

    I also hold a minimal amount of THM.. kind of a just in case the economy implodes and Gold goes to 3000..

     

    When you speak of the Patent Exam, is that the same as the Patent Bar? I would highly appreciate the site you discuss. Justia is the main one I watch for new motions, memo's etc..

     

    Thanks again Joe for the helpful insight.
    8 Aug 2012, 12:58 PM Reply Like
  • sonicthoughts
    , contributor
    Comments (211) | Send Message
     
    I spoke to a source in the company. This agreement with Google refers ONLY to ORGANIC SEARCH. Does not, as indicated in the ruling, include Adwords, etc. Apparently this was part of the legal strategy. I assume it was necessary to get a settlement with AOL. Bottom line is that the relevant claims are still not settled. It's clear if you review the court records carefully. I confirmed with the Company.
    8 Aug 2012, 10:00 AM Reply Like
  • Joe Decker
    , contributor
    Comments (96) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Sonic,

     

    A source in the company, huh. Care to share why you thought this agreement was necessary to get an agreement from AOL, who is not a party to this filing by the court?

     

    As for the rest of your thoughts, yes as you say they were clear from the filing. Agree, everything else explicitly mentioned is "in play".
    8 Aug 2012, 10:42 AM Reply Like
  • see punjabi
    , contributor
    Comments (351) | Send Message
     
    Hello Joe,
    Currently, holding over 3000 shares of vrng at an average price of 2.9. In your opinion, does VRNG has a chance to win or settle the patent war with goog. I'm playing this as a speculative play. I have a very limited knowledge into this arena. I appreciate your suggestion.
    thanks
    8 Aug 2012, 01:14 PM Reply Like
  • Joe Decker
    , contributor
    Comments (96) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » See,

     

    Yes VRNG has a chance. However I'm not going to speculate on the odds of doing so or make fundamental analysis based projections as others have done.

     

    I don't cheer lead or pump any products. If anything, I am much more likely express thoughts of caution or point out potential failures of assumption.

     

    My comments on the 203 filing express what I am comfortable with saying regarding VRNG.

     

    The question that should be foremost in a speculator's mind right now regarding VRNG and it's price action the past few days should be this: Who is selling and why? That question must be thought of in context of the function of the secondary market, VRNG's float and shares outstanding, and the risk vs reward opportunity currently presented.

     

    I might add, telling strangers your capital position in a product sends a poor signal to savvy market participants. First it tells them nothing of value. Second it tells them you likely don't understand what matters in speculation.

     

    As for your $2.90 basis, from a pure price risk vs reward perspective, assuming your interest was taken after the April move, is about as good as one could ask for.

     

    b/r
    8 Aug 2012, 03:47 PM Reply Like
  • mdt081066
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    Very well though out and reasoned arguments.
    8 Aug 2012, 10:35 PM Reply Like
  • JKenser
    , contributor
    Comments (342) | Send Message
     
    Hey Joe, just wondering if you could post that link you were discussing that had the library, have a little downtime now for some research. Thanks a lot..
    9 Aug 2012, 12:22 AM Reply Like
  • Joe Decker
    , contributor
    Comments (96) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Just sent you message with info.
    b/r
    9 Aug 2012, 12:43 AM Reply Like
  • see punjabi
    , contributor
    Comments (351) | Send Message
     
    Thank you very much Joe for your suggestions and arguments regarding vrng. I have good experience with biotech stocks, being a clinical pharmacist, but knew nothing about vrng.
    Thanks and appreciate your suggestions.
    9 Aug 2012, 03:23 AM Reply Like
  • D Chef
    , contributor
    Comments (39) | Send Message
     
    So, being a "Simple man", I ask: Am I an idiot for entering at 3.89?
    9 Aug 2012, 07:04 AM Reply Like
  • Joe Decker
    , contributor
    Comments (96) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » DC,

     

    Im sorry about not replying when you commented; not sure how I missed it.

     

    Idiot for $3.89 entry, all depends upon one's risk appetite, exposure, etc. In short, only you can answer that question if the only information you give some one is the price.

     

    /r
    7 Sep 2012, 08:07 PM Reply Like
  • G.Gekko
    , contributor
    Comments (10) | Send Message
     
    stockalock, do some DD on secondary and don't be like everyone else making decision based on headlines
    9 Aug 2012, 08:29 AM Reply Like
  • Joe Decker
    , contributor
    Comments (96) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » G.G., how did you jump from what Stockalock said to your projection? From your quip you sound like a pot calling the kettle black.
    13 Aug 2012, 01:41 PM Reply Like
  • asia24
    , contributor
    Comments (141) | Send Message
     
    Great information Joe and very useful insight with your comments and knowledge. I agree with you on the question you posed in one of your comments earlier of who is selling? Would be interesting to see as it cant be all traders and short sellers.

     

    I pose two questions if you can help given your patent experiences and extensive Patent knowledge from what I've read. If this case does make it to trial October 16. 1) How long will the trial take? 2) how long will the judge take to make a decision?
    Thanks again for all your insights.
    12 Aug 2012, 03:02 PM Reply Like
  • Joe Decker
    , contributor
    Comments (96) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Asia, thank you for the kind words regarding my thoughts, but how did you derive "your patent experiences and extensive patent knowledge" from what I said about myself?
    13 Aug 2012, 01:39 PM Reply Like
  • asia24
    , contributor
    Comments (141) | Send Message
     
    Given your comments through the message boards and your statement earlier in this thread..... "But not too long ago began working toward taking the Patent Prosecution exam, so she caught my eye..." i believe through that alone you would have a lot more knowledge then most speculative investors is to why i said earlier your extensive patent knowledge.
    13 Aug 2012, 04:25 PM Reply Like
  • Joe Decker
    , contributor
    Comments (96) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » I see and would agree in a very general sense with your "than most speculative investors". However, to be fair to myself and most of the speculative public, I believe the hurdle to such a vaunted status is exceedingly low. ;) So low as to be in scientific terms, an insignificant factor.

     

    All that aside, I know enough to say with great confidence to bet even the lawyers for GOOG and VRNG would not venture a guess to your questions. Sorry.
    13 Aug 2012, 07:28 PM Reply Like
  • RHD
    , contributor
    Comments (447) | Send Message
     
    Joe,
    Your wit regarding my Latin comment on SA is much appreciated; as you well know, most of these fora deteriorate into idiocy.
    7 Sep 2012, 05:17 PM Reply Like
  • Joe Decker
    , contributor
    Comments (96) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Likewise & agreed RHD.

     

    b/r
    jd
    7 Sep 2012, 08:08 PM Reply Like
  • Joe Decker
    , contributor
    Comments (96) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » FYI, they evidently also decay into hiding the truth.

     

    After Icarus made a comment in our ongoing debate (re how quickly a summary judgment can be handed down) that contradicted his prior argument, not only did he delete his comment but also my "coup de grase" comment pointing out his failure.

     

    Interesting Seeking Alpha doesnt have policy ensuring more "transparency"...
    11 Sep 2012, 10:48 PM Reply Like
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers

StockTalks

  • $VRNG win is more about the 3.5% royalty and ability to go after others than the past damages; "latches" will be appealed and won
    Nov 6, 2012
More »

Latest Comments


Most Commented
  1. $VRNG Filing 203 (26 Comments)
Posts by Themes
Instablogs are Seeking Alpha's free blogging platform customized for finance, with instant set up and exposure to millions of readers interested in the financial markets. Publish your own instablog in minutes.