Seeking Alpha

VirnetX (VHC -10.1%) is tumbling to fresh 52-week lows on strong volume, as the Street continues...

VirnetX (VHC -10.1%) is tumbling to fresh 52-week lows on strong volume, as the Street continues weighing the fallout of an adverse jury ruling in its patent suit against Cisco. Last week, the judge presiding over the suit issued a final judgment declaring 12 VirnetX patent claims are not invalid, and denying all pending motions.
From other sites
Comments (27)
  • Chris Hofmann
    , contributor
    Comments (755) | Send Message
     
    WOAH! check your research. the final judgement said those 10 claims were NOT invalid according to the very pdf that you linked!

     

    that is a HUGE error.
    25 Mar 2013, 10:57 AM Reply Like
  • SA Editor Eric Jhonsa
    , contributor
    Comments (853) | Send Message
     
    You're right. The post has been fixed.
    25 Mar 2013, 11:02 AM Reply Like
  • Chris Hofmann
    , contributor
    Comments (755) | Send Message
     
    Thank you Eric.
    25 Mar 2013, 11:03 AM Reply Like
  • lcgrifon
    , contributor
    Comments (6) | Send Message
     
    But horrible damage has already been done. Who knows how many people have now entered that thinking into their dialogue about this company and its long-term value. To simply "fix" the post is not enough. This was horribly irresponsible of you!
    25 Mar 2013, 01:43 PM Reply Like
  • BlackRook
    , contributor
    Comments (19) | Send Message
     
    SA has been hacked by Julian Assange or some other slime of his ilk...
    25 Mar 2013, 11:04 AM Reply Like
  • el Doctoro
    , contributor
    Comments (9) | Send Message
     
    Interesting you couldn't bring yourself to post that the patents were ruled VALID...Judgement by Matter of Law. You still hoping people will misread "were not invalid" you jerk!
    25 Mar 2013, 11:24 AM Reply Like
  • Chris Hofmann
    , contributor
    Comments (755) | Send Message
     
    No need to attack the Editors. I'm sure it was an honest mistake on their part. I for one am appreciative that they corrected it so promptly.
    25 Mar 2013, 11:26 AM Reply Like
  • manix
    , contributor
    Comments (122) | Send Message
     
    The Street is short VHC. With the stock already down $2 this morning, this newsworthy article helped pile on the selling. Mistake? No, my friend it was not. This wasn't just a typo where one word was misspelled. This WAS a complete fabrication to help an ongoing bear attack on the stock. And it worked.
    25 Mar 2013, 11:46 AM Reply Like
  • SA Editor Eric Jhonsa
    , contributor
    Comments (853) | Send Message
     
    Form conspiracy theories all you want. The bottom line is that a double negative was overlooked in a legal document, and the error was promptly fixed when brought up. The stock was already down 10% at the time on heavy volume.
    25 Mar 2013, 11:50 AM Reply Like
  • lcgrifon
    , contributor
    Comments (6) | Send Message
     
    You are VERY charitable! When any kind of reporting organization posts critical information, it is absolutely essential that it be 100% accurate and not misleading. A mistake of this kind can (and probably has) caused massive losses in investors' accounts and possibly lead to margin calls for certain shareholders. I can't look at that and say "honest mistake"...
    25 Mar 2013, 01:44 PM Reply Like
  • lcgrifon
    , contributor
    Comments (6) | Send Message
     
    Couldn't agree more!
    25 Mar 2013, 01:44 PM Reply Like
  • el Doctoro
    , contributor
    Comments (9) | Send Message
     
    If you can't read the king's English get out of our country!
    25 Mar 2013, 01:52 PM Reply Like
  • EXPstocktrader
    , contributor
    Comments (392) | Send Message
     
    Hi - The patents are in fact "VALID" and this posses a real buying opportunity here IMO on the short raid and confusion. GL folks.
    25 Mar 2013, 11:29 AM Reply Like
  • gloriason
    , contributor
    Comments (39) | Send Message
     
    Disgusted with the lack of journalistic integrity. How about sending out a new email blast with the correction highlighted? And how about using clear language like "VALID" instead of a double negative? Honestly, how in the world do you sleep at night? Karma, my friend, karma. . .
    25 Mar 2013, 11:51 AM Reply Like
  • SA Editor Eric Jhonsa
    , contributor
    Comments (853) | Send Message
     
    The judge's ruling uses the words "are not invalid." Feel free to read it if you want.
    25 Mar 2013, 12:16 PM Reply Like
  • James Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (185) | Send Message
     
    I'm no fan of patent hustlers.

     

    Let them go to zero.
    25 Mar 2013, 11:58 AM Reply Like
  • snowblindcrazy
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    this is completely incorrect. The patents were held to be valid but no infringement was found.
    25 Mar 2013, 01:37 PM Reply Like
  • pasadenabob
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    where did you get that info about 12 patent claims invalid and denying all pending motions. Don't spread lies
    25 Mar 2013, 01:37 PM Reply Like
  • @cb3325
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    why put our erroneous info?. Although they did lose the infringement part of the case against CSCO, the patents were indeed declared valid by the jury. truth only if you dont mind.
    25 Mar 2013, 01:37 PM Reply Like
  • SkiBum1353
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    So, where is the final post on this?
    25 Mar 2013, 01:39 PM Reply Like
  • Verifier
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    Huge mistake...class action suite?
    25 Mar 2013, 01:43 PM Reply Like
  • jorgerodr904
    , contributor
    Comments (9) | Send Message
     
    Eric,

     

    Your correction is wrong again with "denying all pending motions". This was a trail not a hearing.
    25 Mar 2013, 01:44 PM Reply Like
  • Chris Hofmann
    , contributor
    Comments (755) | Send Message
     
    actually. I believe it was a trial.
    25 Mar 2013, 01:49 PM Reply Like
  • Luis
    , contributor
    Comments (8) | Send Message
     
    This is a serious mistake and an apology has to be written with a clear explanation that the patents where held to be valid. So, where is the final post on this?
    25 Mar 2013, 04:20 PM Reply Like
  • Luis
    , contributor
    Comments (8) | Send Message
     
    Just Checked the post has not been fixed. Seeking Alpha is apparently not legitimate. I will be posting this on my blog.
    25 Mar 2013, 04:27 PM Reply Like
  • Luis
    , contributor
    Comments (8) | Send Message
     
    Okay I just realized I misread " are not invalid". I am sure others will make the same mistake. An email blast should be sent to all subscribers of VHC news alerts indicating the mistake that was made by SA clearly describing that the patents are VALID. Anything else short of this will show that the SA editor has an agenda.
    25 Mar 2013, 05:10 PM Reply Like
  • wpgesc
    , contributor
    Comments (5) | Send Message
     
    All recipients are still looking at the original wording in their email inbox from SA. A correcting and positive email is a minimal refutation of this gross distortion of the outcome and implications. Where is it?
    26 Mar 2013, 05:10 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector