Seeking Alpha


Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View markriely's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Strange Goings On In The VirnetX Vs. Apple Case [View instapost]
    Jeff, do you think the judges in the current CAFC appeal (related to the original infringement trial and damages) have also gotten to see this RR ruling with its entertaining language? Normally I might think not, since it typically would not relate to the original case, but since here it adds to the record of that original case by revealing Apple's "gross misrepresentation" in an attempt to deceive the jury into a lower damages award, I would think it would be relevant, or even imperative, for the CAFC to see.
    Mar 30 02:56 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Defy Putin By Making A 50% Return On CTC Media [View article]
    Good summary by both the author and by you, Follansbee, in your reply. I will also add that the new CEO, Yuliana Slashcheva, has been very impressive in her conference call presentations. She appears to have the vision, the authority, and the practical sense to execute the growth plans in a cost effective manner. I met each of her three predecessors at one time or another, and while each had his good points, she appears to be the best equipped for the job.
    Mar 19 01:09 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX's Royalty Triumph Is Excellent News [View article]
    While not getting into all the specific arguments in Tom's piece, I would contend that it is very important to understand the financial implications of the royalty rate decision if the CAFC affirms the lower court on the initial judgment (i.e., validity, infringement and damages). Based on my calculation the annual royalty would be $400 million or more per year. In terms of a "victory' I might suggest that if the lower court decision is affirmed and the Supreme Court declines to hear the case, Apple would have to start cutting some big checks, global settlement or not. You are right, of course, that if the case is remanded back to EDTX the royalty rate decision is out the window (although the colorable difference ruling is sure to apply on product not covered in the hypothetical damages retrial). Nevertheless, each investor has to assign his/her own probabilities on a remand occurring. It appears not to have happened too often for Judge Davis. Since you fear that the damages verdict could be at risk, do you care to opine on the instructions that the CAFC would give Judge Davis if a remand were to occur?
    Mar 10 01:15 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment