Seeking Alpha


Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View bencahn1's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Take-Two And "Grand Theft Auto V": Investing Behind A Blockbuster Year [View instapost]
    Great piece. My only concern is the next gen consoles coming out...but then if you look at pre sales as any's nothing to worry about.

    I also think that if you can afford a new console, you can likely afford a few games.

    Lastly I think the time between the game's release and the PS4 is substantial enough for people to not want to wait.

    All of my friends who play video games will not be waiting. They will be buying it when it comes out.

    I guess my only concern would be the broader market and what it does.

    Oh and one more thing..I think your estimates are accurate but I also think there's tremendous potential for the stock to reach 25 by the week of GTA's release.
    Aug 28 11:58 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Venaxis: Well-Funded Ahead Of Multiple Catalysts Expected Through Year-End [View article]
    Thanks Mike. What do you think a reasonable price target/market cap is for APPY by fall/end of year?
    Jul 29 06:59 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Will Patent Office Eliminate Vringo's Right To Future Royalties From Google? [View article]
    holy crap. BRAVO SIR. BRAVO. @danravicher, care to comment?
    Dec 13 07:29 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Will Patent Office Eliminate Vringo's Right To Future Royalties From Google? [View article]
    Dan manges to make it sound like VRNG has an uphill battle ahead of them, when in fact it is GOOG who has the uphill battle. Let's take his second-to-last paragraph, and see how easily it can be flipped:

    "In conclusion, for Vringo to actually collect any future royalties from Google, there are many things that must happen. Vringo must have the judge rule the patents are not obvious. Vringo must have the judge award it future royalties. Vringo must defend the jury's verdict of infringement on appeal. Vringo must defend the jury's verdict of validity affirmed on appeal. Vringo must defend the judge's decision that the patents are not obvious on appeal. Google must not be able to design around the patents. And, now, add to that list, Vringo must keep the PTO from canceling the asserted patent claims and/or requiring Vringo change them in a way that either no long covers Google's systems or makes them easier for Google to design around."

    Nay, I choose to view it as follows:

    -GOOG must have/hope the judge does NOT rule for future royalties (highly unlikely, considering how in favor of VRNG the judge has been leaning thus far)
    -GOOG must appeal the jury's verdict.
    -GOOG must appeal the jury's verdict of validity, which hasn't yet even been affirmed on appeal.
    -GOOG must somehow figure out a design-around (which, if it was so easy as Ravicher suggests, they would've done months ago)
    -GOOG must convince the USPTO to invalidate/cancel VRNG's patents.

    Ask yourself: who truly has the uphill battle ahead of them? Literally just about EVERYTHING that can have gone in VRNG's favor, has gone in their favor. To suggest that VRNG has a very difficult road ahead of them relative to GOOG is preposterous.

    Ravicher makes it sound like VRNG is the one who suddenly has to prove itself, when it is GOOG who really has to get to work. And judging by how well they did during the trial (which Ravicher doesn't address, nor does he address the obvious competence and track record of Don Stout, et al), they don't stand a chance.
    Dec 13 02:22 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The $15 Billion Patent-Play In Trovagene [View article]
    any upcoming catalysts?
    Dec 12 05:29 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • MGT Capital A Better Bet Than Vringo At 1/20th Its Valuation [View article] didn't explain at all WHY it's a buy. what are their patents? why are they going to sue casinos?
    Dec 6 08:06 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Verdict And Future Royalties Against Google On Shaky Ground [View article]
    why would the judge suddenly begin to rule against VRNG, when thus far, he's ruled in their favor virtually 99% of the time? And I find it interesting that you critique certain people for posting about laws on which they are uninformed (because they are not lawyers), and yet you post about technology on which you are likely equally uninformed - - you still maintain that GOOG can simply design around it, as if you know firsthand that this is a feasible solution. Similarly misleading.
    Dec 5 09:53 AM | 10 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo's Court Win Suggests Running Royalties May Yield $500-$600 Million [View article]
    read carefully. these are lawyers: they said they are very happy with the "INFRINGEMENT" and "VALIDITY" parts of the verdict. as for the compensation, THAT is what they said they're looking into.
    Nov 7 08:14 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Hype: Face The Facts [View article]
    no responses to the future royalties eh?
    Nov 7 03:26 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Hype: Face The Facts [View article]
    "the jury verdict implies future damages will be awarded". you sir, are again incorrect.

    the only thing the verdict says is "running royalty of 3.5%". the mistake many make is that they assume "running" implies future royalties. this is not the case.

    a "running royalty" is merely the other option in assessing damages. the second option of course being a lump sum.

    so, based on a "running royalty of 3.5%" from september 2011, that is where the figures come from.

    by the way, steve kim's pointing out your spelling was a means to poke holes in your credibility. e.g., "this guy can't even spell appellate lawyer, why should we listen to him".

    also, his "failing" to PREDICT LACHES? what the hell is that? right. steve kim couldn't predict them. thus, he is incompetent.
    Nov 7 03:17 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Hype: Face The Facts [View article]
    the fact that you say "future damages" have even been awarded tells me you know nothing about what has been going on. VRNG has NOT been awarded future damages. that alone is for the judge to decide. and, as some have surmised, there may have been an error in the damages calculation done by the jury. according to the press release from VRNG this afternoon, they intend on filing the proper motions to get to the bottom of things.

    further, it's not over until its over. and thus far, it certainly is not. the judge has yet to rule on future royalties, and the verdict has in fact been redacted.

    come on, son.
    Nov 7 03:03 PM | 9 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: Jury Verdict [View instapost]
    can you please elaborate on your figures? i dont see where you're getting about the same amount (30mm) in future royalties. based on what revenue numbers?
    Nov 6 03:29 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: Take A Deep Breath, The Roller Coaster Continues [View instapost]
    Steve, how can the judge suddenly do this? weren't the figures/time periods disputed before? why would he just now decide to change this?
    Oct 31 03:39 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Google Vs. Vringo: Why I Think A Settlement Is In The Cards [View article]
    not necessarily. 300-500 million settlement (first of all, that's not gonna happen for that little, must calculate future royalties as well) VRNG more credibility going forward to future lawsuits (e.g., ZTE). such a settlement would also lend itself to give VRNG an earnings multiple. it might temporarily hurt the stock, but it would be short-lived.
    Oct 15 08:19 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: Judge Jackson Strikes And Limits Google's Expert Testimony [View article]
    very nice comment. despite their apparent lack of leverage, you still think this only settles for 500MM?
    Oct 13 11:05 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment