Seeking Alpha

financemc

financemc
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View financemc's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • How Vringo's Reversal At CAFC Just Increased My Confidence In A VirnetX Affirmation [View article]
    Agree completely;

    In the vrng case the justice asked in more than one way was 101 raised at trial or on appeal and goog said "no". The case was reversed on 101 and it was not on appeal.

    Why would the court not address an obvious, egregious act of judicial overreach? If they can/did do that, what are the rules?
    Aug 18 04:38 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • How Vringo's Reversal At CAFC Just Increased My Confidence In A VirnetX Affirmation [View article]
    Jeff;

    I agree that the VHC case is looking good with the two judges and their use of VHC's case to support their decision on subsequent cases; EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE NOT PUBLISHED THEIR DECISION ON VHC. Seems very strange.

    I think that the CAFC does a de novo analysis on obviousness/patentability and that is what vrng lost on. Judge Mayer decided that goog's expert testimony, that: "it is just sitting there" is enough for him to change IP law and disrupt the US economy.

    I think that the luck of the draw of the two judges deciding on VHC's case will mean that we are successful. My point above is if VHC is successful as we all agree is likely, does that mean that there is suddenly a conflict that must be resolved in the vrng case, either by SCOTUS or en banc? I do believe that obviousness was ruled on in the VHC Markman hearing so it is in the record and is looked at de novo by the CAFA, so, if vrng having overcome Judge Jackson's Markman, the jury's findings, 2 reviews by the USPTO and then one old judge saying everyone is wrong and I am changing law..............anything can happen. I am wondering if a VHC enhances vrng's chances of getting an en banc or SCOTUS hearing. It would seem that writing a security program is just as obvious as writing a filtering feature for advertising; the 14th amendment would demand equal treatment. Just my thoughts.
    Aug 18 03:38 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • How Vringo's Reversal At CAFC Just Increased My Confidence In A VirnetX Affirmation [View article]
    trader;

    The court is not going to take time to write an opinion on damages or infringement if they do not think the patent is valid so of course that would be a starting point. They actually stated that in the vrng opinion.
    Aug 18 01:25 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • How Vringo's Reversal At CAFC Just Increased My Confidence In A VirnetX Affirmation [View article]
    RS;

    I agree that the patents should be evaluated on their own merits but with the vrng decision and the Alice SCOTUS decision patents must overcome obviousness in a new way. It seems with the vrng decision if there is prior art a software patent is just an obvious extension of prior art and not valid. The court actually said that it is "just sitting there". Really a stunning decision and a blow to all IP.
    Aug 18 01:23 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • How Vringo's Reversal At CAFC Just Increased My Confidence In A VirnetX Affirmation [View article]
    Thanks for the great article RS. I completely agree that the citations give great hope to the case not being reversed. After the shocking vrng reversal it seems that the CAFA does not like and will not approve of software patents.

    If the VHC case is affirmed it seems that that would help bolster the chances of a vrng en banc or SCOTUS review. There would be 2 contradictory opinions from the same court. In vrng the court pretty much said there is no new art in improving upon prior art and nothing is really patentable because everything is obvious, and with VHC they would be saying that it is not obvious to have a methodology for seamless security. The vrng case really made a mess of IP law and to allow just 2 judges to completely upset the world of IP law and the US economy which is built on IP, is just absurd and would be shocking.

    Your thoughts?
    Aug 18 11:51 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Appellate Majority Makes Critical Error In Supporting Obviousness; Vringo Candidate For Supreme Court Test [View article]
    Thanks for the well written article PP.

    I seems that this decision is so impactful on the future of patents and the US economy that the SCOTUS or an en banc review is almost required. The US economy is driven by IP and for JUST 2 JUDGES to change law on their personal interpretation of a concept of obvious and "sitting there" is shocking.

    Everything invented today is an improvement or evolution of other prior art so according to Mayer nothing deserves a patent because it is obvious that others will improve a future computer chip, engine, solar panels....... they should not be patent eligible. Stunning lack of intellect.
    Aug 18 11:18 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple Vs. VirnetX: The Federal Circuit Will Affirm Judge Davis [View article]
    Well said wrynot
    Aug 13 07:25 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX: A CAFC View Through A Clear Lens [View article]
    Sixty;

    You nailed the list. As to #5, this very well could have been the result of aapl lying about the cost and ease of a work-around solution. The jury could have decided that the damages claimed were too much if there was an easy/cheap remedy and gave the damages a 50% haircut.

    Congress really needs to step in and pass a law that if defendant wants to use a legally affirmed IP they MUST enter into a licensing agreement immediately after a jury verdict or be barred from using it. AAPL is trying to have it both ways, try and win in court or try and get the court to apply a pitifully low valuation on the IP while not offering anything of substance. If it was mandatory to have the parties contractually work out a solution it would save a ton of the court's time and be a fair solution for all, with no "hypothetical" values at all, just pure negotiation.

    The CAFC could then just rule on the trial and the patent and not waste time trying to figure out the damages, it will be mutually decided. This would also result in less trials because big companies would not want to risk loosing at trial and be made to actually buy the license after a loss or have an immediate, assured and disastrous injunction on their product. This whole forced license in lieu of a injunction is causing too many problems and is too arbitrary; congress needs to act. The status quo is ridiculous.IMHO

    Long VHC, the CAFC citing a pending case and then remanding that case is unimaginable. They would have to go back and fix the "tainted" case(s),too.

    I do not understand the short thesis.
    Jul 26 12:00 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • ParkerVision: Investors Need To Watch Both The Courts And The USPTO Over Next 18 Months [View article]
    ParkerVision filed an appeal yesterday so it seems that the CAFC will be decided before the IPR process has played out. If the CAFC reverses the jury verdict/ sustains the judge's JML, it is over and the IPR is moot. However, if the CAFC reverses the judge and re-instates the jury award the IPR will more than likely be moot too. The CAFC is the final word and other than the SCOTUS taking the case, the case will end there.

    So, it seems Mr. Farmwald has gone through a lot of time, money and trouble for nothing, the IPR will not decide the validity the CAFC will.
    Jun 26 10:59 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Analysis Of Oral Argument In Vringo Vs. Google Patent Infringement Appeal [View article]
    Apparently, the market did not like the judge's comments about the jury form.......something about hash. So for that comment vrng lost 15% of its market value. Truly, amazing.
    May 7 01:29 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Reports Fourth-Quarter And Full-Year Results: Was The Sell-Off Warranted? [View article]
    Hi Justin;

    I enjoy your work, thanks for all the info.

    Do you think that the licensing agreement with ADT was not disclosed because there will not be any meaningful payment unless/until the goog case has run its course; like msft. VRNG got very little cash and some patents; the cash is on the come. I think that might be the case with ADT. Thoughts?
    Mar 19 08:01 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Reports Fourth-Quarter And Full-Year Results: Was The Sell-Off Warranted? [View article]
    Lawsuits are binary; win or loose all the way through appeals- that is a fact.

    There are chances of settlements but the targets that vrng is after and the amount of the damages/licenses demanded make the possibility of settlement remote. In my opinion vrng has to win one big case through all appeals and get paid and then they would be taken more seriously on the settlement side. So, yes I think this is an almost binary type of investment, similar to bio-tec, FDA approval or rejection.

    They have many opportunities at hand but in they end they win or loose in the end, binary events, just a couple more opportunities.
    Mar 19 04:55 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Reports Fourth-Quarter And Full-Year Results: Was The Sell-Off Warranted? [View article]
    The problem is vrng is not worth anything without a complete win; not just jury verdicts but on appeal. VRNG is one bad verdict from bankruptcy so it is risky, almost binary type of investment. I like the odds but understand the risks.
    Mar 19 03:56 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX Vs. Apple At The CAFC: Why VirnetX Will Be Just Fine [View article]
    single;

    They used smallest saleable unit and they went through the analysis. The Ip was bundled with the camera and they extracted the cost of the camera and then took a percentage of the profit. The upcharge for the camera that enabled the technology was about $29 and hence the profit was just pennies. They sell macs without the IT embedded but they don't sell mobile devices without the IP as part of the device's OS- hence the difference.
    Mar 13 08:14 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX / Apple Appeal: Bad News For VirnetX And Other Patent Assertion Entities [View article]
    They did one time licensing agreements so no re-occurring revs. I wish they would do that with aapl.
    Mar 13 01:50 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
421 Comments
634 Likes