Seeking Alpha

Daniel B. Ravicher's  Instablog

Daniel B. Ravicher
Send Message
Daniel B. Ravicher is a registered patent attorney who frequently trades stocks and options of public companies based on his personal opinions on legal issues that may materially affect their value. He also consults with investment banks, hedge funds, and individual investors on such issues.... More
My company:
Daniel B. Ravicher, Esq.
My blog:
@danravicher on Twitter
  • Preview Copy Of Article On PTO Risk To Vringo Royalties 80 comments
    Dec 12, 2012 4:34 PM | about stocks: VRNG, GOOG

    I've written previously about the Vringo (VRNG) v Google (GOOG) patent infringement case, where the jury awarded Vringo's I/P Engine affiliate a mere $31M, which was a small fraction of the $493M it asked the jury to award. The litigation appears highly material to Vringo's valuation, currently around $250M, as some suggest it could provide future royalties for Vringo from Google of hundreds of millions of dollars. I have opined against this expectation because I believe Vringo's future royalty expectation is on par with the jury award, which was similarly hoped by Vringo to be in the hundreds of millions but resulted in only tens of millions.

    While the Court awaits the parties post-trial motions, which Google has already suggested will include a motion to decrease the verdict even further, not much coverage has been given to a separate front Google has successfully opened against Vringo's patents at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Even if the court awards Vringo an ongoing future royalty against Google, something it has not yet done, and something Google has indicated it will vigorously oppose, there are several ways Google can reduce or eliminate altogether paying any such future royalties to Vringo. I've previously mentioned appealing the jury's verdicts of infringement and validity and designing around the patents, but Google's attack on I/P Engine's patents at the PTO could also affect Vringo's entitlement to future royalties. I discuss that risk to Vringo's future expectations
    in an article I submitted this afternoon to the Seeking Alpha editors for publication.

    A preview copy of the article is available from here. Note that Seeking Alpha publishing policies prevent me from making preview copies of the article available for free. If you do not wish to pay for a preview copy of the article, I respect and understand that. If you wait a day or two for the Seeking Alpha editors to review and approve my article, they will publish it then for free.

    Disclosure: I am short VRNG.

    Themes: Technology Stocks: VRNG, GOOG
Back To Daniel B. Ravicher'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 (80)
Track new comments
  • Mr Ravicher you NEVER disclose you collaborated with Google

     

    follow the link
    http://bit.ly/11QAJck

     

    you should be banned

     

    If the price is low enough I will destroy the ask with a 500k shares bid or maybe even more

     

    This is getting personal
    12 Dec 2012, 05:37 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » You are making a complete lie, and it's borderline libelous. I have never collaborated with Google. I have given two public talks at their campus, which are available on YouTube, but they neither compensated me for those talks, nor even covered my expenses. I have had absolutely no contact with Google about this matter and, in fact, at a recent conference on software patents at Santa Clara Law School, I criticized what their General Counsel had to say about "patent trolls".

     

    But, more importantly, your personal attack is a cliche and weak attempt to distract from the fact that what I've said about Vringo has been completely true and accurate. If you could point to an error of fact or law that I've made, you'd surely do so. The fact that you and so many other Vringo supporters have to resort to personally attacking me only gives me more confidence that the company is supported by weak childlike shareholders who are either unaware of Vringo's true prospects, or who know the truth but are purposely trying to prevent it from becoming public.

     

    Continuing to make up lies and attack me personally only serves to give me even more confidence that I am right.
    12 Dec 2012, 11:09 PM Reply Like
  • whats low enough for you kevin?
    13 Dec 2012, 02:42 AM Reply Like
  • The personal attacks don't mean that your arguments are correct. It just means that some people think you are distorting the truth in order to profit from stock manipulation.
    13 Dec 2012, 07:27 AM Reply Like
  • The fact that they didn't pay you (which after all the lies you wrote is not credible at all) doesn't mean you did NOT collaborate with them

     

    For example, You said VRNG asked for injunction which is totally FALSE

     

    You can't even report the real facts in a correct manner

     

    Your articles are totally worthless
    13 Dec 2012, 07:51 AM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » I did not report that, I gave my opinion that it would happen. Regardless, is that really the biggest issue you can raise with what I've said substantively, that VRNG hasn't even asked for injunction when I assume they will? That actually makes my negative case better. Is that all you've got? You can't find any other fact or statement of law I've said that is wrong?
    13 Dec 2012, 07:54 AM Reply Like
  • you DID report that

     

    ''The Judge will soon turn to addressing any post-trial motions made by the parties, including a motion by Vringo for a permanent injunction''

     

    enough said

     

    you can't even admit evident errors
    13 Dec 2012, 08:04 AM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » Wrong. If I were "distorting the truth" people would respond with pointing out where I've said some fact or statement of law incorrectly. Attacking me shows a long on tilt and just angry that they can't respond substantively.
    13 Dec 2012, 08:08 AM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » I did not say Vringo had asked for injunction. I assumed they will. But even if you're right, so what? So Vringo hasn't even asked for injunction. That's WORSE for them and BETTER for my short. You have anything else to point out that I've said that's wrong? Anything?

     

    You're saying I'm a liar is libelous. I caution you to not continue doing so. I can subpoena your IP address from SA and pursue a claim against you.

     

    If my articles were worthless, why are you sweating me so much? Why do so many longs come out desperately launching personal attacks on me? Answer: they know I'm right and they only have hope and hype.
    13 Dec 2012, 08:11 AM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » How can a statement about the future be a statement of fact? It's can't. Statements about the future can only be opinions. Unless you think people have time travel.

     

    And so what. Let's assume I was wrong and Vringo never moves for an injunction, how does that affect my analysis of anything? Is that really all you can find to criticize me? That's your best shot? Really? So sad.
    13 Dec 2012, 08:12 AM Reply Like
  • Dan, You have stated previously, "I've reviewed the Bowman and Culliss prior art documents myself and concluded that I do not think they render every asserted claim of the '420 and '664 patent invalid under the clear and convincing evidence standard. Do they have some similarities to the '420 and '664 patent claims? Yes, without question. But are they identical to those claims, or do they render those claims obvious? I'm not so sure, as I see some merit in Vringo's arguments..."

     

    What if someone made an investment decision based on your expertise? Now they find out that you have changed your opinion and you no longer see any "merit" in the case. Please explain the inconsistencies.
    13 Dec 2012, 08:16 AM Reply Like
  • Invictus,
    Dan will not respond to reasonable questions, questions with merit, or questions about his inconsistencies. He responds to personal slander comments or comments that have no merit.

     

    Ask him why it is ok to speculate on matters that may negatively effect pps but no offer a balanced article that has speculation on matters that will positively effect pps?
    13 Dec 2012, 09:52 AM Reply Like
  • shhhhh Kevin. Let Dan go nuts!! I could really use a good Ravicher scare to scoop some more shares myself. :-)
    12 Dec 2012, 07:19 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » I'm not scaring anyone. I'm spreading facts and truth about Vringo and that's what scares people.
    12 Dec 2012, 11:10 PM Reply Like
  • Dan,

     

    You may not be intentionally trying to scare anyone, but more than a few VRNG shareholders needed a fresh change of pantaloons after your last article.

     

    It's not your short position that's generating the VRNG shareholder angst, it's your visceral contempt for plaintiff and the toxic, impeccably credentialed cocktail of biased analysis and "gloom & doom" prediction that has people reacting in aggressive ways.

     

    Look at your reply above. "Spreading Facts and Truth" sounds like the words of a modern day zealot, not an analyst on an investment website. You are an intellectually refined man with guru level knowledge of this field. However, some of your arguments are as refined as they are biased & disingenuous.

     

    I'm a trader and investor. Stocks are merchandise to me and to most other people following this case. On the other hand, you seem more viscerally invested in this narrative than you do in the trade itself. You have taken sides here based on your personal convictions, not your analysis of the facts at hand.

     

    I have heard the counter argument that James Altucher, for example, may be guilty of succumbing to his own biases in his pieces based on his long position. That would be correct.

     

    The difference between you and James is that he is a pure investor. He dispassionately observes this legal beef between plaintiff and defendant from the sidelines thinking it might be a good trade. More importantly he does not speak with the well credentialed authority in the field that you deservedly wield. When you make predictions, people seriously ponder what you say because you are the expert in the field. I wish you would take that responsibility more seriously.

     

    Mixing personal convictions and with investment analysis is a recipe for financial disaster. What you do with your investments is certainly none of my business, but I do think it's unfair to your readers to tinge your view on the trade with such a strong under-toe of bias and malaise .

     

    13 Dec 2012, 12:21 AM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » I have no idea from where you made all this stuff up. You don't know me at all. I have no emotional attachment to this case whatsoever. I went into it completely unbiased, happy to come to any opinion, pro or con, or no opinion at all. That's how I became pro-PRKR for example. I don't like people betting based on hope and hype, some of which I believe has been purposefully spun, including specifically the false articles that the jury awarded Vringo an ongoing royalty, which they did not.

     

    Regardless, if I was a purely rational financially motivated actor, I'd be a partner at a law firm and not a non-profit lawyer who teaches. I care about the public interest, and dispelling false hope and hype in the stock market is something I find important and enjoyable to do.

     

    In conclusion, please don't ever again make statements of fact that you can't prove to be true, such as how I came to my conclusions, whether I have emotional investment here, etc. How about instead we all talk about Vringo, not me. Let's talk about the puny jury verdict that was less than a tenth of what Vringo asked for. Let's talk about the fact that the jury did not issue ongoing future royalties and the judge hasn't yet either. Let's talk about how Vringo has made absolutely no motion to "correct" some supposed made-up "decimal error." Please. stop talking about me and focus on Vringo. if you were really a rational investor, you'd do that.
    13 Dec 2012, 12:44 AM Reply Like
  • Dan,

     

    I have been focussing on VRNG. Please don't be outraged. I intend no personal disrespect to you. Your credentials are impressive and some of your comments have been quite helpful. I've also enjoyed reading several other pieces you wrote. However, you are a public figure with a known record. I don't need to know you personally to understand your stances and biases.

     

    And you are correct when you say that this isn't about you. It's about VRNG and GOOG. However, some of your statements, while technically true, have been misleading or out of context. I take issue with the fact that you take a biased approach to analysis. You just mentioned above, "I care about the public interest".

     

    Are you a public watchdog? An analyst? Or an investor with a short position? These are incongruous roles and they are impossible to reconcile without becoming a bit of a laughing stock, no pun intended. It's deeply problematic and I'm amazed that a guy as smart as you is either unwilling or unable to recognize this.

     

    I mean look at what you wrote above. All technically true, but out of context or disingenuous.

     

    "did not issue ongoing future royalties and the judge hasn't yet either."
    -- This matter is not settled and no one on this board actually knows what is going to happen. We know the expert testimony in the case and we know the jury found VRNG is entitled to RR. The judge hasn't ruled yet so we just don't know do we?

     

    "Let's talk about how Vringo has made absolutely no motion to "correct" some supposed made-up "decimal error.""
    --Another disingenuous statement. We all know VRNG is trying to avoid a mistrial. They have brought up the issue in their rebuttal. The fact that they have not filed a motion does not mean that they are not taking action to address the issue or that they are complacent with the past damages figure. You know court room strategy and understand how this game works better than anyone else. This is an incredibly complex scenario with many variables we may not be aware of with precedents favoring long and short positions. Why do you dumb the issue down to "well they haven't filed a motion so they must know they are in the wrong". These are just disingenuous arguments for someone with your knowledge in this field.

     

    Are these statements really serving the public interest? Are they really giving a fair and balanced view of what is happening? Are they serving the investor community-- short or long?

     

    This is not a personal attack, but I find that your inability to present the facts in a fair and objective manner completely hinder your ability to serve the "public interest", specially the public interest of shorts. And like you said, this isn't about you. It's about VRNG, but your MO needs to be called out. Some of your commentary is as objective as Fox News is "Fair and Balanced". I think that is why so many people on SA revile your statements. It's not your short position Dan. It's your analytical method.
    13 Dec 2012, 02:54 AM Reply Like
  • So, Dan, will you respond to superdaemon's questions regarding your consistent distortions of the legal posture of this case?
    13 Dec 2012, 07:41 AM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » You don't know what a fact is. You're making wild supposition and assumptions and characterizing them as facts. You have no evidence at all that "Vringo wants to avoid a mistrial". That's such a stupid thing to say to boot. I can't have a rational discussion with you because you aren't rational if you think speculation about motives equals fact.
    13 Dec 2012, 07:57 AM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » He doesn't identify a single fact or statement of law that I've made that's wrong. Instead, he says my "characterization" of the facts is "misleading". He says I should suppose certain things are true, when there's no direct evidence of them being true. So, there's nothing for me to respond to. I can't discuss fairy tales and hope and hype, which is about all Vringo supporters have to talk about.
    13 Dec 2012, 07:59 AM Reply Like
  • Dan, did you have any IDEA AT ALL THAT VRNG WANTED AN INJUNCTION? Yet you speculated that they did.
    13 Dec 2012, 09:39 AM Reply Like
  • The difference between a pesky provocateur and participant is the willingness and ability to hold an honest dialogue in place without falling pray to cheap tactics like misdirection.

     

    In classic Prof. Ravicher fashion you pound your fists with indignation and go off on some tangent instead of addressing valid points which you have been dodging for days. So just be clear Professor... Your only critique of my previous statement is that I should have prefixed "In my opinion" to the phrase "Vringo wants to avoid a mistrial". Given that I don't represent VRNG as an attorney. It is implied that it is my opinion. That is your point of contention?? Really? That's all you got?

     

    Here are some more facts. You tell me if I think I need to prefix these with "in my opinion".

     

    You are trying to avoid open heart surgery at all costs.
    You would hate having hot coffee spilled on your lap.
    You would run fast if chased by a pack of rabid dogs.

     

    Do I really need to insert "in my opinion". These are self evident just as much as it is clear that the VRNG does not want a mistrial.

     

    You're a valuable resource to this discussion Dan. How I wish you would actually address the issues rather than falling prey to tactics of misdirection. So please attack my arguments, not the semantic technicalities. This behavior doesn't make you look smart. It makes you look like you're misdirecting. You're an expert patent attorney. Make us look bad. Show us where we are wrong. I'm serious.
    13 Dec 2012, 11:33 AM Reply Like
  • Can I also pick up a copy at K-Mart? You are doing your utmost to maintain the reputation of the legal profession, seNor.
    12 Dec 2012, 10:14 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » I am spreading facts. Vringo supporters respond with personal attacks. No one has yet cited a single fact I've ever gotten wrong, and even my opinion predicting how the jury would rule was overly generous to Vringo. But, please, feel free to continue with personal insults and avoid dealing with the truth of Vringo's situation. You only give me more confidence in my conclusions about the weakness of Vringo's shareholder base.
    12 Dec 2012, 11:05 PM Reply Like
  • So, Dan, in your opinion why has Vringo not yet made a motion to correct under Rule 60??
    13 Dec 2012, 07:51 AM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » I don't know why they haven't done something. I don't talk to them and I haven't seen them discuss it in any way. I'm not an idiot that makes up things in my head to make me feel better. That's what Vringo longs do. If it were me, I wouldn't make such a motion because I don't have any basis to make it. This whole "jury made a decimal error" theory is total junk and make believe.
    13 Dec 2012, 08:01 AM Reply Like
  • Lol. You said, let's talk about why they have not asked for a correction, now you don't want to? You seemed more than willing to make assumptions about Vringo making a motion for injunction, or that the trial Judge will adjust the verdict downward. You also seem quite willing to support Google's argument as to the patent inconsistency in the jury's calculation methodology while calling the more logical explanation junk. You seem to have lost the ability to weigh or even entertain both sides of the issues.

     

    What do you think Vringo's post-trial is? What's your opinion of how the plaintiff's legal team has handled the case this far?
    13 Dec 2012, 09:17 AM Reply Like
  • VRNG submitted over 400 pages in response to GOOG. Anyone that thinks the USTPO will response anytime soon is crazy.
    12 Dec 2012, 10:52 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » The vast majority of those "pages" were copies of prior art that they are required by law to disclose to the PTO once they know of it. Their substantive response, which I've made available at http://bit.ly/UCS43A, is a mere 18 pages and shouldn't take the PTO long to respond to at all.
    12 Dec 2012, 11:03 PM Reply Like
  • But the response references the prior-arts and explains why the prior-arts do not result in obviousness. If I were the PTO, I'd read all those prior arts to cross-check Lang's response. Seriously, do you expect the PTO just to read Lang's response without verifying his arguments?
    13 Dec 2012, 12:12 AM Reply Like
  • Dan, again, since you do computer science on the side, or at least have spoken with people who are computer programmers, you can now speculate about validity and obviousness? I guess it's ok to speculate on matters that may affect VRNG pps in a negative manner, but it is not ok to speculate that a judge may refer to the patent act section 284 and "the court shall award the claimant damages adequate to compensate for the infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer, together with interest and costs as fixed by the court."
    13 Dec 2012, 09:43 AM Reply Like
  • Dan: Many people have cited facts you publish that are wrong. You choose to ignore them, by either not commenting or by deflecting. For example, Why not respond to SteveKim and the injunction you mistakenly referred to. He and others point out how you have rarely provided a balanced viewpoint. Many people give specific examples.

     

    Some have defended your persistent denigration on Vringo's future because you're on a crusade against "patent trolls." You are an academic, with a strong viewpoint and Vringo is your whipping boy. Yet, you also admit to being short the stock, and I've noticed that each article you publish has had a negative effect on the stock price. Therefore although you are an authority, I'm forced to question your motives in being so vigorous on this issue, despite the public flogging you get in comments on your articles. Why do you persist? How do we know you are not trying to profit by trading on the impact of the articles you write?

     

    If you are going to respond that it's a small sum, then why not give up the small sum for the sake of increasing your credibility? Why not share your transactions?
    12 Dec 2012, 11:19 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » I'm performing a public service exposing the truth, setting forth facts and law and giving my educated opinion. I don't even use the term "patent troll", which I've said publicly is pejorative, imprecise, and unhelpful. I'm not sure what this huge fact is that I blatantly misrepresented about an injunction, so please quote what I said and point to proof that it's wrong. If you can't, your statements that I'm lying are libelous and I take it seriously.

     

    I've writing pro-articles for VirnetX (VHC) and ParkerVision (PRKR), so to imply I'm just an anti-patent lunatic is also baseless. Do some research before you make unfounded accusations, please.
    13 Dec 2012, 12:07 AM Reply Like
  • Dan, when you say: "a mere 18 pages and shouldn't take the PTO long to respond to at all" - do you have any data on how long the PTO usually responds? You being vague? Some may think your response implies days.

     

    What do you expect, days, weeks, months, quarters .... I have heard that it's several months to years. How long do you estimate?
    12 Dec 2012, 11:22 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » I'd usually expect the PTO to respond to VRNG's response within 6-12 weeks, but since it's the holidays, I'd given them an extra couple weeks. But, there's no hard time limit on the PTO, although they are supposed to handle reexaminations quickly, so it could possibly take a year or more, or they could do it within days. Depends on the Examiner's workload. But, my expectation would be January or early February.
    13 Dec 2012, 12:09 AM Reply Like
  • Dan - according to the USPTO http://1.usa.gov/TdbDzH
    it takes an average of 25 months and median of 19 months for re-evaluation. Must find all counts invalid or changed. that will take quite some time as Google just filed.
    13 Dec 2012, 11:30 AM Reply Like
  • For example, Dan in your comments with SteveKim :
    He points out:http://seekingalpha.co...

     

    Dan, an interesting tidbit just came to my attention. On 11/7/2012, you tweeted "First, doesn't matter as Judge will not disturb $VRNG jury verdict."

     

    Now you argue that the Judge will grant a downward revision of the verdict on a motion that Google has not even filed. I guess no matter the outcome, you will be able to say in your next article, "as I correctly predicted..." Which of your opinions is real, and which is your hedge?

     

    You again, do not respond. You refer to the fact that JJ is not bound by the jury, yet SteveKim talks about what the judge is likely to do (and he points out that the judge is not bound.)

     

    There are countless examples where you are very one-sided and distorted in your writing and from the number of negative comments, I'm sure you are aware that people are suspecting your motives.
    12 Dec 2012, 11:35 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » My tweet was in response to people saying the verdict should be enlarged. Please read what I say in context, and don't cut and paste to support your long biased twisting of my words.

     

    You are correct that Google has not yet filed a motion to reduce the verdict, but they have said that they are going to and they have given an explanation for their intended motion.

     

    You say I'm "one-sided" because you don't like what I say. If I was pro-VRNG you wouldn't be complaining at all. Remember, I'm the guy who said VRNG would win teh trial and be awarded $95M. Yeah, I was wrong, they only got $31M. Sorry. But I didn't see anyone, including Steve Kim, putting his real name with a specific prediction.

     

    And what's this about motives? Why did you take time to write your comment? Aren't you a long who's motives are to discredit anyone who says anything negative about VRNG? So I'm not sure what your point is about that. But, to be clear, I didn't take a short position in VRNG and then come up with arguments to support that. I did the exact opposite. I analyzed the situation honestly and then took a position that matched my honest assesment of the truth. I think VRNG is mostly hope and hype. The $31M jury verdict proves that, when they were hoping and hyping for $493M.

     

    I've writing pro-articles for VHC and PRKR, both of whom have patent suits against big companies. So, you can't say I'm just anti-patent holder.

     

    Bottom line is you don't liek what I say, and so instead of responding to what I say, and contradicting the facts and law, you joint eh weak longs who personally attack me, which further proves how write I am, that people can't even argue against my substantive arguments.

     

    I'm sorry you've bought into the hope and hype, but it's not my fault. I'm doing my best to dispel the false hope and hype with truth.
    13 Dec 2012, 12:19 AM Reply Like
  • Dear Dan Ravicher:

     

    You said that you are "spreading facts".

     

    This is from your previous article: "The Judge will soon turn to addressing any post-trial motions made by the parties, including a motion by Vringo for a permanent injunction and/or ...".

     

    Please provide the link where Vringo has a motion for permanent injunction ...".
    12 Dec 2012, 11:40 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » I assumed (and still assume) they will make such a motion. They haven't yet. And your point is? How is the existence or nonexistence of such a motion relevant to anything at all I've said. Please, if that's your best counter attack to what I've said in all my articles, then you've got nothing.

     

    Please identify a fact or statement of law I've made that's not true. I admit, when I predicted Vringo would win the trial and be awarded $95M I was completely wrong. They only got $31M. I'm sorry my opinion was so wrong.
    13 Dec 2012, 12:21 AM Reply Like
  • <crickets>

     

    "I am exposing the truth."

     

    Indeed, many have died at the hands of men on the same mission with the same zeal, with the same fervently held beliefs. Please, educate and reform us, bestow your glorious wisdom on our unwashed minds.

     

    Words are, indeed, the truth. And yours, Sir, speak volumes.

     

    C.H.A.R.L.A.T.A.N.
    13 Dec 2012, 12:23 AM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » How about at least trying to point out some fact or statement of law I've made that's wrong, rather than trying to personally attack me? Is it because you can't? Is it because all you have left to do is attack people personally if they say anything negative about your precious VRNG?

     

    You have my name and my address and my phone number. I've got nothing to hide. You, on the other hand are a coward who hides behind internet anonymity and makes cheap personal attacks. You just prove how silly and weak VRNG longs are.
    13 Dec 2012, 12:27 AM Reply Like
  • I could spend time cataloging the valid counter arguments presented by others to which you have simply not responded. But what's the point? You know what they are. $39.95 would buy me that, or a cup of coffee? There was a point when I purchased the Ravicher Report because it was well constructed and useful. However, your bias is blinding.
    13 Dec 2012, 12:50 AM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » So you have nothing to say but personally attack me. Thank you for proving my point yet again, coward.
    13 Dec 2012, 12:53 AM Reply Like
  • "The Judge will soon turn to addressing any post-trial motions made by the parties, including a motion by Vringo for a permanent injunction"

     

    You did not say "assumed" in your article, you said "including"

     

    If Vringo did not file such motion, how can Judge address an non-existed motion?

     

    Your article clearly indicate that the Vringo already filed such a motion.

     

    You are not spreading the fact. As a professor, I question your integrity.
    For your $31 million question and answer. I did not ask such question.
    But I like to comment it here: You are also misleading the public about the damage award.Your article gives the public the impression that $31 million is the total award. In fact, it is not.$30.5 million ($15.8 + 14.7) is the the past award jury gives to Vringo.

     

    $493 million is the amount VRNG asked for the total damage payment (past + future).

     

    If using 3.5% x 20.9% formula for the next 4 years, the total damage award will be more than $495 million.

     

    The fact is: Judge has not give his final judgment yet.
    13 Dec 2012, 01:07 AM Reply Like
  • Lol. Address the points in your last article where you made up issues and facts out of thin air.

     

    And, BTW, the market seems to disagree with your assessments:

     

    http://goo.gl/eBNT8

     

    The good thing, Dan, is that as traders, we don't really care what you think. You are a data point, one that used to be interesting and useful, and no longer is, because your perspective is now so distorted by your bias. Between now and some academic future in which you might be proven right (or not), I, for one, will have taken handsome profits from this trade, both long and short. Stand by your convictions, man. Just get used to standing alone. And don't be too bitter in the end when all you have left is your convictions.
    13 Dec 2012, 01:08 AM Reply Like
  • Attention K-Mart shoppers! The Ravicher Report is on sale in aisle number 5 for just $39.95!

     

    Hahahaha...
    13 Dec 2012, 01:09 AM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » Your statement "$493 million is the amount VRNG asked for the total damage payment (past + future)." is 100% completely wrong. $493M is how much VRNG asked the jury to award it in damages. They couldn't ask the jury to award anything for future, as juries don't do that. You have no idea what you're even talking about.

     

    I agree completely with "The fact is: Judge has not give his final judgment yet." And your point is? I've given my explanation for why I think the judge may actually reduce the jury award and may impose ongoing royalties much lower than what other people expect. So you disagree with my opinion. Fine, but don't lie and say I've misstated facts. I have not.

     

    Your statement "If using 3.5% x 20.9% formula for the next 4 years, the total damage award will be more than $495 million." may be correct, although it assumes Google's revenues will not decrease in the future. But I discussed in my article here http://seekingalpha.co... why I think that's unlikely. You don't agree with my opinion. Again, that's fine. But saying that I'm misrepresenting fact is a lie and borderline libelous.Stop doing it.
    13 Dec 2012, 01:17 AM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » Like a typical dumb coward, you have nothing original to say but to repeat the same stupid attempted insult you made before. Pretty sad.
    13 Dec 2012, 01:18 AM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » I've never "made up issues and facts out of thin air." You saying I have is a lie itself. I do agree, though, that the market is far from rational and educated, so stock prices frequently don't accurately reflect true value. Instead, they reflect hope and hype.
    13 Dec 2012, 01:21 AM Reply Like
  • Marpha, I tend to agree as you nailed it on the head. Data Point no longer. (no pun intended)....lol

     

    Dan I will give you credit on your YouTube Video with Monsato seeds, well presented and good argument... Hope you do well there as Monsanto needs a swift kick in the teeth.
    13 Dec 2012, 01:28 AM Reply Like
  • Dan, my use of the word charlatan was a professional assessment of you. I'm not sure why you are engaging in personal attacks and calling me a coward...
    13 Dec 2012, 07:39 AM Reply Like
  • See superdaemon's comment above. Please respond to that for the benefit of your readers.
    13 Dec 2012, 07:43 AM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » Calling me a charlatan is libelous, as it by definition says I'm committing a crime. You're a coward because you hurl insults and attack my character while using an anonymous pseudonym and not revealing your true identity. That's why you're a coward. Put your name and address in your next comment and change your photo to your real photo.
    13 Dec 2012, 08:04 AM Reply Like
  • Dan, there is nothing illegal about being a charlatan and I never suggested there was. Here is a good definition:

     

    http://bit.ly/TQDNiF

     

    It is merely my opinion that you have a propensity for overstatement that appears to be influenced by your investment bias and justified by you by your expertise as a lawyer.
    13 Dec 2012, 09:57 AM Reply Like
  • that monsanto case was thrown out by the judge, pretty sad, i consider monsanto the most unethical company on the planet
    13 Dec 2012, 02:48 PM Reply Like
  • "I'm not scaring anyone. I'm spreading facts and truth about Vringo and that's what scares people."
    You state in all your articles the $31 mm award. Why not also mention that Google and Vringo have concluded a mathematical error so the $31mm stated is not a clear number to go by. Why not do the proper math and discuss that Google kept the proper revenue number hidden from the Jury. Why not also state that there's billions involved in revenue and it's an "obvious" mistake? It simply seems your articles are in favor to support your short position!

     

    " I've previously mentioned appealing the jury's verdicts of infringement and validity and designing around the patents"

     

    Appealing the jury verdict on what legal ground ? That they lost on every front except for laches! Btw Dr. Frieder stated there is no "work around", and I'm sure you read his EXPERT testimony, and ask yourself the question... why didnt Google design a work around when they were sued for similar patents by Yhoo/Overture?

     

    Good luck with your short position once the final ruling comes out.
    12 Dec 2012, 11:41 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » You're merely parroting arguments made by Vringo and other longs filled with hope and hype. I don't give such junk any respect, because it's junk. I won't take part in the spreading of false baseless hope and hype. I rely on facts, not wild speculation or weak arguments. You also seem to have no idea what an appeal is. Jury verdicts of infringement and validity are appealed - and reversed - all the time. Your misunderstanding of the law further supports my conclusion that VRNG longs are unsophisticated.
    13 Dec 2012, 12:24 AM Reply Like
  • You should also state the fact Dr Becker range 20%- 40% patents boosted google revenue Jury awarded 35% Top end of range shows jury intent to penalize google et al as much as possible.
    13 Dec 2012, 12:08 AM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » "shows jury intent"? Are you serious? The jury's intent was shown by their verdict form, which awarded $31M. That's it. Your hope and hype is leading you to read "intent" out of thin air. I suggest you stop being dilusional and deal with reality. The sooner the better.
    13 Dec 2012, 12:29 AM Reply Like
  • Dan please point me to where vringo spreads rumors of false or misleading reports of any type and I'll gladly sell all my options and shares, and even take a short position in support of your argument.
    13 Dec 2012, 01:16 AM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » I've never said "vringo spreads rumors of false or misleading reports of any type" but in my article http://seekingalpha.co... I cite another article making a false statement about future royalties. I can cite to others, too.

     

    But, please, can you really not discuss the facts here? Why spend so much time slinging mud. Let's talk about patent issues, about appeal prospects, about Google's ability to design around, etc. Why is it so hard for Vringo supporters to discuss Vringo itself? Why do they care so much about making personal attacks against those who discuss Vringo's financial prospects directly and cast doubt on them? Are my arguments so irrefutable that all anyone can say in response is attack me personally?
    13 Dec 2012, 01:35 AM Reply Like
  • Dan I don't sling mud as you did earlier, I don't want to get involved with all the pigs in the mud (quoting JA) I personally suggest you contact COO Alex Berger of Vringo and discuss some of your issues and questions with him as did Patrick Anderson last August. Alex Berger can also point you to Dr. Becker and Dr. Frieder or Dr. Carbonell to answer your questions pertaining to the work around and the revenue and royalties.
    As traders, we just look for the correct argument and the better story...case in point your Monsanto presentation.
    13 Dec 2012, 01:59 AM Reply Like
  • Dan - You previously stated that Vringo's patents are valid (in your articles and your tweets). I guess you no longer maintain that position?
    13 Dec 2012, 02:56 AM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » Don't misquote me, please. You're making the same error so many make and not being precise. Please cut and paste me exactly. Don't summarize what you think I've said. If you look exactly, what I previously said was that I expected the jury would find the patents valid, and they did. I was right.
    13 Dec 2012, 08:06 AM Reply Like
  • ok what is your current position?
    13 Dec 2012, 10:10 AM Reply Like
  • The fact that they didn't pay you (which after all the lies you wrote is not credible at all) doesn't mean you did NOT collaborate with Google

     

    For example, in the previous article You said VRNG asked for injunction which is totally FALSE

     

    Not even an amateur writer could make such big errors

     

    You can't even report the real facts in a correct manner

     

    Your articles are totally worthless
    13 Dec 2012, 07:54 AM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » You're so flummoxed that you're now resorting to repeating yourself. I've responded to each of these points above. You're a typical VRNG long, with nothing but hope and hype and personal attacks to use to try to respond to my facts and law.
    13 Dec 2012, 08:17 AM Reply Like
  • "Remember, I'm the guy who said VRNG would win teh trial and be awarded $95M. Yeah, I was wrong, they only got $31M. Sorry."

     

    Here's what you actually stated below :
    "Third Question for the Jury: How much is Vringo entitled to in damages for Google's infringement of the valid claim(s)? (Answer is an amount and can vary from $0 to any amount the jury thinks is supported by the evidence.)

     

    Over $95 million: ~50%
    Under $95 million: ~50%"

     

    Give me those odds in Vegas any time and ill say I won.

     

    I think I speak for all the readers on SA when I say STOP twisting your words, people words to benefit your argument.
    13 Dec 2012, 08:14 AM Reply Like
  • Dan I try to maintain an open mind when investing and always read the opposing view. However, your articles are so one sided and lacking common sense that lose all credibility. I see some valid points in your articles but you avoid addressing what many, including Vringo's attorney, see as a jury miscalculation of past damages. There is no evidence of a 2.8% anywhere in the trial. Four of the defendants damages were properly calculated based on the evidence presented, except 1 (Google). You don't even consider the possibility of that error. If you care so much about the public then be fair and at a minimum address that possibility.
    13 Dec 2012, 08:27 AM Reply Like
  • Dan, lets be honest. You speak partial truths with a seasoning of PURE SPECULATION. Dan, have you read Lang's rebuttal to the USPTO regarging the reexam of 420? Are you a computer programmer as your side job? Do you know who is a computer scientist with extreme knowledge of the situation? Dr. Freider. Have you called or emailed him to hear his thoughts about a work around or invalidity/obviousness? So as the longs here purely speculate about pps and decimal point transpositions, you PURELY SPECULATE about validity/ obviousness and work arounds. Dan, you a lawyer right? A patent lawyer...right? Someone who claims to speak truths? Dan, have you heard of the patent act? Section 284 Dan? Section 284 Upon finding for the claimant the court shall award the claimant damages adequate to compensate for the infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer, together with interest and costs as fixed by the court. Dan, I read all your articles on this case and haven't ONCE seen you reference this? So even if the jury intended to award VRNG 15million, does that 15M adequately compensate for the infringement with respect to the evidence presented during the case? Tisk tisk tisk Dan, you should know better.
    13 Dec 2012, 08:36 AM Reply Like
  • Dan,

     

    Do you accord no weight to Vringo's argument that "it is apparent that the jury made a simple decimal point transposition error in arriving at its damages amounts."

     

    It seems to me that this is the more logical argument as it relates to the running royalty than the numbers the jury awarded as those numbers do not make sense when you look at the amount awarded against Google as compared to the other defendants.

     

    The better of the argument seems to be that the Google number was the mistake that warrants an upward revision as opposed to Google's argument which is that its number should be revised down based on the other defendants' numbers.

     

    Thanks,
    13 Dec 2012, 10:07 AM Reply Like
  • Dan:
    My intention is not to attack you. Thanks for responding to me and all the other comments here - I get frustrated when you leave criticism hanging out there. In fact, I admire your thick skin.
    I'm questioning your motives - that is not a personal attack. Everyone is entitled to an option, but all options are not equal.

     

    If I write an article, like lawtrader, talking about how great a stock is, and I'm long, and I can profit from presenting my viewpoint and influencing the market - then good for me. If I simply pump stocks, that later sink - well people will stop listening. Likewise, if like modernist, I keep presenting a negative viewpoint on a stock, and am short - well good for me if I have some impact.

     

    However, you are an expert in your field. You have evoked your credentials many times. You are a professor. You should be held to an entirely different standard because as an expert, people rely on your opinion.

     

    As an expert, your motives are VERY important. For example, an expert wittiness for the defense has a clear motive - to support the defense. I would certainly not expect a balanced perspective. I would be very concerned, however, if there were a biased opinion from the judge because I expect him to be impartial.

     

    Where do you stand? Are you presenting a balanced viewpoint as an expert in the field or are you presenting a one-sided view because you have a financial, or other incentive?

     

    What I think is triggering such outrage from people is that you are not clear about this. You have claimed to be unbiased, yet your basically litigating the case on SA! This is so completely transparent to those who have been following ot- yet to those who are not, it looks like an authority, with an unbiased view has a negative outlook which impacts the stock.

     

    If you are profiting when the stock tanks (you disclose you are "short") and that is your perspective, as opposed to presenting an unbiased view, then please make that clear. Don't do this just for the sake of the reader - your entire reputation is at stake. You should do it out of self-interest.
    13 Dec 2012, 10:47 AM Reply Like
  • I'm no expert, but I'm amused to see a formerly renowned "expert" such as Mr Ravisher self-destruct and resort to immature mudslinging with repeated lambasting of VRNG longs as delusional, "with nothing but hope and hype and personal attacks". Now who is the one taking things personal?
    13 Dec 2012, 12:33 PM Reply Like
  • Dan is not speaking the fact at all.

     

    The truth is that Google lost the case and Vringo wins.

     

    Yes, Google can ask for patent re-exam, Google can ask to reduce the award, yes Google can appeal.

     

    That does not mean, Google will win the patent re-exam, That does not mean Google will get reduced award, that does not mean Google will win the appeal.

     

    Let us find out.

     

    As for the $30.5 million past damage award, $15.8 + 14.7 million. The evidence is that 35% of total damage should be counted not 3.5%. It is a math error.

     

    $31 million is not the total damage. Verdict is 3.5% as running royalty. Judge will rule future damage soon.

     

    My view: VRNG will win all.
    13 Dec 2012, 12:41 PM Reply Like
  • Over $95 million: ~50%
    Under $95 million: ~50%"

     

    This reflects how good Dan's math is.

     

    Because one of the event will happen. That is for sure.

     

    Google can do whatever it wants to do. But what is the chance Googl can win for each one. So far I have not seen anything Google has won.

     

    Dan can say 50% of chance Google will win and 50% of chance it will loss.

     

    That is his style.
    13 Dec 2012, 12:54 PM Reply Like
  • Judging from how Dan skewed his expected timeline for the PTO re-exam process, my guess is that he is long the Feb puts, which have been getting crushed. There's some decent volume in the low strikes preceding his recent articles. Looking at the put/call pricing, however, I would say the market makers favor the Feb calls... Even with a bump in vol, the pricing isn't budging on the puts.
    13 Dec 2012, 01:02 PM Reply Like
  • I'm just disappointed that he won't answer questions directly. It's like dealing with a teenage lawyer. No Doogie Howser jokes Marpha!! lol
    13 Dec 2012, 01:24 PM Reply Like
  • LOL@"What? Thats all you got bro?" Well done superdaemon , James and Kevin. It is reassuring to see the credibility of the Vringo shorts erode. "Pride goeth before the fall". Long VRNG
    13 Dec 2012, 06:22 PM Reply Like
  • Dang it gets heated here in these comments...

     

    Dan,
    I have a question about one possible scenario I'd like your input on concerning future royalty. If the judge were to come to agree with what IP Engine states in their post trial motions. That the jury screwed up and the Goog past damages award was intended to be 10 times higher (158 million).

     

    My question -
    If he were to come to that conclusion. In your opinion is the judge then more likely to still use the miscalculated Goog monetary award (15.8mil) for calculating the future royalty... or is he then more likely to use the 3.5% of ~20% that was the only 'royalty rate' x 'royalty base' presented during the trial? And, if he's still more likely to use the miscalculated dollar amount, could you explain why?

     

    I'd have to think that longs think it would be 3.5% of ~20%. But I would very much like to hear your opinion of what would be the most logical outcome of that scenario. Hoping to hear which, and why.
    13 Dec 2012, 06:37 PM Reply Like
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers

StockTalks

More »

Latest 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.