Seeking Alpha

sonicthoughts

sonicthoughts
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View sonicthoughts' Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • UQM Technologies: Many Clues That An Inflection Point Is Upon Us [View article]
    They would be foolish to hire employees without the signed contracts (which they would likely announce in a press release.) Why are you saying employees are "decreasing" - on the conf call they said they were stable.
    Apr 2 06:05 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • UQM Technologies: Many Clues That An Inflection Point Is Upon Us [View article]
    I initially thought the "pop" was due to the fuel cell hype, however I think something else is at play.

    Pay attention to the timing - especially the after hour trades and the volume. This is a very small company that is not directly related to the fuel cell market. Also, the "pop" was attributed to the ISO certification (which has over 40K members.)

    My take is that there are definitely people who know about an imminent deal - perhaps they are using the ISO cert to mask high vol trading.

    At any rate, I agree with the theme of this report that there will inevitably be an announcement soon and that will be a big catalyst. Also, once the stock goes beyond $5 it will start to attract many funds who have a $5 floor.
    Mar 17 12:02 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • UQM Technologies: Many Clues That An Inflection Point Is Upon Us [View article]
    Hi Shaun - Really glad you are focusing on UQM - I am very bullish on them in the long term. They are in a great space, survived CODA and have made some good leadership moves.

    Would like to get some clarification on some points that you make.

    First of all, what are you sourcing for the revenue and GM for the bus and car markets? I've not seen that so explicit and would like to see any assumptions as that is critical in analyzing UQM.
    The 2K busses to break even in 2014 is quite substantial given that Protera has only produced a handful and other EV bus manufactures are not much ahead. The protera busses are about $1M so a 2K order is about $1B - that's quite an investment in the short term. Would be great, but appreciate any thinking on the market opportunity based on real data for the near future. Timing will be very important to the share price. I think China is a great opportunity but concerned about resistance to foreign innovation.

    Build Your Dreams BYD who makes both the drivetrain and bus has been the EV leader for fleets - what are your thoughts about them?

    Also I do not agree with your PE analysis - Don't see any need to include Tesla as it is a unique play and not a component manufacture.

    Looking forward to hearing more thoughts on this great company.

    BTW - any idea why they had such a pop last week? The ISO is important but let's face it, over 40K other companies have it - not a stock driver as press indicated. I get that Tesla and PLUG could have been drivers but all those after hour trades looked more like insider information or speculation about a deal to me...
    Mar 15 09:10 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX / Apple Appeal: Bad News For VirnetX And Other Patent Assertion Entities [View article]
    What other methods should $VHC have used then? They used 3 that have precedence in case law.
    Mar 13 09:29 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX / Apple Appeal: Bad News For VirnetX And Other Patent Assertion Entities [View article]
    "In fairness, others believe that New Bay wanted to avoid the subpoenas, although the timing of the withdrawal was extremely suspicious."

    If you want "fairness", then please point out as @cssdraw does that Bay Capital refused to disclose who was funding them or who they were. They were an entity created months prior for the specific purpose of suing VHC.

    When VHC tried to find out who they were and their funding / relation to Apple, they dropped the suit....
    Mar 13 09:28 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX / Apple Appeal: Bad News For VirnetX And Other Patent Assertion Entities [View article]
    "What Mr Farmwald's article points to is a broad trend in court rulings to reduce reliance or eliminate rule of thumb measurements of patent damages and ongoing royalties."
    -- "Rule of thumb" was not used and is not permitted in damage assessment. Nash Bargaining was used which is quite different.
    Mar 13 09:20 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX's Royalty Triumph Is Excellent News [View article]
    Tom - you were clearly using the term 'impeachment' to illustrate the severity of having a preconceived bias (ie. having an agenda to create new case law which is what others have implied or stated) and you were not getting into his ethics or legality of impeachment. This seems like a total nitpick and strange reprimand by @Markman.
    Mar 10 02:19 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX's Royalty Triumph Is Excellent News [View article]
    @manix - good catch. I think this is relevant. The statement implies that there are outside parties contacted / surveyed and that it is a broad opinion, yet @Markman does not specifically address this issue - it could well be one or two people in their firm.
    Mar 10 02:15 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX / Apple Appeal: Bad News For VirnetX And Other Patent Assertion Entities [View article]
    link is broken.
    Mar 10 10:17 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX / Apple Appeal: Bad News For VirnetX And Other Patent Assertion Entities [View article]
    3% of the iphone would be just fine with me. $APPL had a chance to show $VHC enough data to get them to a reasonable royalty but as Judge Davis wrote they refused to give any detail so APPLE put Virnetx into a position to use what they did. This was an OBVIOUS miscalculation by Apple's legal team - they could have argued exactly as you do, but they FAILED to. They screwed up. This is not about what is fair, it is about the legal process and Davis felt they played by the rules.
    Mar 10 10:17 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX / Apple Appeal: Bad News For VirnetX And Other Patent Assertion Entities [View article]
    JP and 8331091 - I completely agree, however the Appeal is very narrow in scope. Please see my comment above: http://bit.ly/1kCNIdd .
    The issue is far more about the legal aspect of the procedure than what is "fair" although Judge Rader talked about what is fair to prove his point about the law.

    In the end, however, I think this will boil down to one thing:

    Can the CAFC use this as a precedent case to eliminate Nash Bargaining in establishing a royalty base in patent law.

    Clearly Rader wants this, but I do not think this is the case he can use simply because Apple screwed up. They showed contempt and forced $VHC to use what they gave them. DAVIS VERY CLEARLY RULED ON THIS already and it was NOT a decision made in haste. It was WRITTEN EXPLICITLY (cited in link above) and to overturn will be a big black-eye for Davis.

    They may write some very strong language but will not reverse on this case - they will find another.
    Mar 7 01:02 PM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX / Apple Appeal: Bad News For VirnetX And Other Patent Assertion Entities [View article]
    "If the Fed Circuit reverses and remands for a new trial" - you make the assumption that "a new trial" will be for everything, infringement, damages, etc. That is an extreme case. Typically, if a new trial is ordered, it will be for a much narrower scope (ie. base of 1% royalty). Would you agree or are you saying that the likely case is that they retry everything? Makes a big difference in interpreting your statement.
    Mar 7 12:52 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX / Apple Appeal: Bad News For VirnetX And Other Patent Assertion Entities [View article]
    Mike:
    You are right that Radar was very harsh on NBS and would like to create case law here - however It would be wise to focus on the Order / Opinion that Judge Davis wrote. He is one of, if not the leading Patent Federal Judge and could have thrown out NBS. He explained WHY he didn't:
    "Apple is asking VirnetX to look into a crystal ball to divine if and how accused product sales will further decrease. VirnetX was only given sales information of to December 31, 2012, and VirnetX’s methodology is reasonable in light of the almost impossible task Apple is now requesting."

    The issue here is that Apple screwed up. They tried to box VirnetX into a corner by not providing them with sufficient information to calculate an appropriate royalty. NBS is an accepted economic theory and was ONE of THREE methods used (including surveys of how valuable the feature is and similar cases of royalty rates) - they did the best they could based on the information provided. Apple could have / should have proposed a more appropriate method but they didn't. Furthermore, the NBS was ultimately discounted substantially.

    One more point, The Virnetx lawyer DID address why $6 for an iphone vs. $0.25 for Mac - Facetime is more valuable in a mobile device. If you ask is $6 appropriate, does facetime add that much value? That is where Apple should have argued, but they didn't and they would have trouble if they did. Why? Because Apple used Facetime as a key differentiator in all of there marketing campaigns to differentiate iphone from competing products. They also used VPN to market the phone to the enterprise. It could be argued that without it they would not have had as much market success without it.

    I ask you, based on what Apple was willing to provide, what other means did Virnetx have to establish a royalty base?

    I'm sure Rader et. al. will have strong opinions about using NB but I do not think they will be able to fault VirnetX here because Apple had a flawed legal strategy.

    Note the Order was available AFTER the oral arguments took place.
    Mar 7 08:16 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX / Apple Appeal: Bad News For VirnetX And Other Patent Assertion Entities [View article]
    Strange that you fail to mention that there were THREE methods used by an EXPERT to determine the RR base and percentage. Nash was just ONE. They used it as a "check" against other methods.
    Mar 6 03:14 PM | 14 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • USPTO Director: Examiner Must Address VirnetX Expert [View instapost]
    This is yet another example of the biased and manipulated patent office. Send your complaints to the USPTO http://bit.ly/1dioWu4
    Mar 3 06:00 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
194 Comments
251 Likes