ConocoPhillips: The Best Investment In The Energy Sector? [View article]
Am i missing something? This sentence doesn't seem to make any sense: "Ten years ago, the stock was trading at around $19 and one could buy 500 shares for one thousand dollars." Wouldn't 500 * 19 = $9500? As far as I can tell, COP has never traded anywhere near $2/share. I like your article, but the entire premise of the last three paragraphs seems mistaken.
Why Apple Is A Short-Term Sell Based On David Einhorn's Plan [View article]
@Drew9944 -- exactly. This article ignores how every stock works before and after ex-dividend dates for large special dividends. Typically, the stock either is flat or rises before the ex-dividend, drops slightly after the ex-dividend date (since the special dividend is no longer available and people can sell and still get the special dividend) and then drops by the rest of the price of the special dividend after the dividend is distributed. This is because people buy before the ex-dividend date to get the special dividend -- exactly as this author suggests -- causing the stock to rise before the ex-dividend date. The stock drops after because, by definition, the company is less valuable, having distributed a large special dividend to shareholders. The very definition of special dividends provides that the stock should drop by the amount of the special dividend.
So, following this authors advice, a current shareholder would at best be the same having sold now and repurchased before ex-dividend (assuming the stock stayed flat) and at worst, substantially worse off should Apple rise when others get the idea to buy before the ex-dividend date. And that's totally ignoring any fees for buying and selling, and any tax differences possibly caused by long-term v. short-term capital gains and/or any wash rule issues. Consequently, IMO, this article is extremely short-sided.
Joe: You're misreading the proposed legislation. The term "succeeding" refers to whether the plaintiff would succeed at trial. So, in VRNG's case it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Lycos would have succeeded as a company. This simply means that if the Court determines that a case is not likely to succeed, i.e., is frivolous, the Court may award attorneys' fees to the defendant.
You're also putting to much stock in this "change" in legislation. 35 U.S.C. 285, already provides "The court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party." At most, this "change" merely lowers the bar for awarding fees.
Vringo Vs. Google: Verdict Imminent, Trading Halted [View instapost]
I intend to hold my VRNG stock. It's patents have been deemed valid. It gets a 3.5% royalty from Google until 2016. And this case sets the tone for future cases against Yahoo, Microsoft, and others. By the way, Reuters seems to think the future royalties could be worth $500MM: http://yhoo.it/SLmQIc
Vringo Vs. Google: Verdict Imminent, Trading Halted [View instapost]
If you followed the updates on Twitter, people were expecting a grand slam home run. While of course i would have liked a bigger number in past royalties, the important part is that the Judge will calculate future royalties and the patents have been deemed valid. The potential downside from a Google appeal is off-set by an appeal of the laches ruling by Vringo. VRNG is not going to $100 tomorrow, but it's only going up from here.
Vringo Vs. Google: A Mid-Trial Report [View article]
Leading the witness means asking questions that suggest the answer, like, "The light was green, correct?" You cannot ask leading questions during the direct examination of your own witness. But you are right that leading your own expert shows a lack of preparation because an expert essentially should be able to do the direct examination alone with only a few softball questions from the lawyer that he (or she) knocks out of the park.
Vringo Vs. Google: Trial Update For 10/21/2012 [View instapost]
darkangel:
You said, " Does VRNG get a third chance to ask Their witness Dr. Frieder more questions to clarify things after Googles cross examination"
Yes. Vringo gets an opportunity to do a "re-direct" examination after Google finishes its cross. Theoretically, Google could then do "re-cross," followed by another round of Vringo's "re-direct," and so on. But, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which being that they don't want to look unprepared, the parties typically do not go back and fourth like a game of ping pong. Additionally, each "re" is confined to issues raised by the last examination of the opponent and so the issues one can raise become narrower and narrower. Also, the party that put the witness on (Vringo, here) gets the last word regardless.
Vringo Vs. Google: Trial Update For 10/18/2012 [View instapost]
I think you're extrapolating from my comment more than I may have intended. Google's goal is to paint Vringo as someone not to be trusted, so that if it ends up being a close call on infringement, the jury decides (perhaps secretly) to side with Google. Google's hoping for a feather in its hat, nothing more. Jury sentiment is important, but it won't win the case. The Judge definitely isn't bound by jury sentiment about Vringo -- in fact, he's bound in the opposite direction. The Judge is required to follow the law and be impartial regarding his personal feelings about either side. The jury is supposed to do that too, but with a panel of Average Joe's (Sarah Palin reference not intended), juries frequently allow personal feelings to find their way into their judgment. Imagine if you were on a jury and one side acted like complete jerks throughout the trial. Or say you thought one side was just trying to extort money out of some good company. You might find yourself believing the other side more, right? And that might even happen subconsciously. How many times do two sports fans see the same play and one guy thinks it was a foul and thinks it was a clean play simply because they like opposing teams.
As for your questions about what the Judge can do, he can "direct" a verdict before the jury deliberates if he feels that the evidence is so one sided that no rational jury could find for the other side -- he essentially takes the decision away from the jury. He also could enter a "judgment not withstanding the verdict," sometimes called "judgment as a matter of law," if he felt that the juries verdict was unsupported by the facts and evidence. It's a similar standard to the "directed verdict." Both of these scenarios are fairly rare, and probably unlikely in this case. I am not sure if that entirely answers your questions, but as far as getting into the damages award, that likely will be more of a mathematical calculation if Google is found to have infringed.
Vringo Vs. Google: Trial Update For 10/18/2012 [View instapost]
Holykatz: You said, "in the world of the law specifically in the IP world does it matter what reasons you have for suing?"
While this technically is correct (in most circumstances), you also have to understand that this case will be decided by a jury that occasionally can be swung by personal animosity. So Google is attempting to paint Vringo as a troll that does nothing for society and contrast it to Google, a company that provides services -- many of which are free -- that millions of people use and love. In this vein, if the jury hates Vringo, Google hopes that the jury might be more sympathetic to Google. Whether that's a winning strategy is hard to know, but millions of dollars are spent in litigation on jury consultants that try to advise which jurors will be favorable to each side.
ConocoPhillips: The Best Investment In The Energy Sector? [View article]
Why Apple Is A Short-Term Sell Based On David Einhorn's Plan [View article]
So, following this authors advice, a current shareholder would at best be the same having sold now and repurchased before ex-dividend (assuming the stock stayed flat) and at worst, substantially worse off should Apple rise when others get the idea to buy before the ex-dividend date. And that's totally ignoring any fees for buying and selling, and any tax differences possibly caused by long-term v. short-term capital gains and/or any wash rule issues. Consequently, IMO, this article is extremely short-sided.
Mark Cuban Raises His Position In Vringo. Should You? [View article]
Pandora Media (P): Q3 EPS of $0.05 beats by $0.04. Revenue of $120M (+60% Y/Y) beats by $3M. Shares -21.1% AH. (PR) [View news story]
Vringo's Kryptonite [View article]
You're misreading the proposed legislation. The term "succeeding" refers to whether the plaintiff would succeed at trial. So, in VRNG's case it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Lycos would have succeeded as a company. This simply means that if the Court determines that a case is not likely to succeed, i.e., is frivolous, the Court may award attorneys' fees to the defendant.
You're also putting to much stock in this "change" in legislation. 35 U.S.C. 285, already provides "The court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party." At most, this "change" merely lowers the bar for awarding fees.
Vringo Vs. Google: Verdict Imminent, Trading Halted [View instapost]
http://yhoo.it/SLmQIc
Vringo Vs. Google: Verdict Imminent, Trading Halted [View instapost]
Vringo Vs. Google: What To Watch For In The Jury Verdict [View article]
What makes you think that Dickstein Shapiro has this case on a contingency?
Vringo Vs. Google: Investors' Trial FAQ [View article]
http://bit.ly/VDV3aZ
Vringo Vs. Google: Investors' Trial FAQ [View article]
Is the Court open today?
Vringo Vs. Google: A Mid-Trial Report [View article]
Vringo Vs. Google: A Mid-Trial Report [View article]
Vringo absolutely can and will ask Ungar about Judge Posner's conclusions.
Vringo Vs. Google: Trial Update For 10/21/2012 [View instapost]
You said, " Does VRNG get a third chance to ask Their witness Dr. Frieder more questions to clarify things after Googles cross examination"
Yes. Vringo gets an opportunity to do a "re-direct" examination after Google finishes its cross. Theoretically, Google could then do "re-cross," followed by another round of Vringo's "re-direct," and so on. But, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which being that they don't want to look unprepared, the parties typically do not go back and fourth like a game of ping pong. Additionally, each "re" is confined to issues raised by the last examination of the opponent and so the issues one can raise become narrower and narrower. Also, the party that put the witness on (Vringo, here) gets the last word regardless.
Vringo Vs. Google: Trial Update For 10/18/2012 [View instapost]
As for your questions about what the Judge can do, he can "direct" a verdict before the jury deliberates if he feels that the evidence is so one sided that no rational jury could find for the other side -- he essentially takes the decision away from the jury. He also could enter a "judgment not withstanding the verdict," sometimes called "judgment as a matter of law," if he felt that the juries verdict was unsupported by the facts and evidence. It's a similar standard to the "directed verdict." Both of these scenarios are fairly rare, and probably unlikely in this case. I am not sure if that entirely answers your questions, but as far as getting into the damages award, that likely will be more of a mathematical calculation if Google is found to have infringed.
BTW, i'm long VRNG.
Vringo Vs. Google: Trial Update For 10/18/2012 [View instapost]
You said, "in the world of the law specifically in the IP world does it matter what reasons you have for suing?"
While this technically is correct (in most circumstances), you also have to understand that this case will be decided by a jury that occasionally can be swung by personal animosity. So Google is attempting to paint Vringo as a troll that does nothing for society and contrast it to Google, a company that provides services -- many of which are free -- that millions of people use and love. In this vein, if the jury hates Vringo, Google hopes that the jury might be more sympathetic to Google. Whether that's a winning strategy is hard to know, but millions of dollars are spent in litigation on jury consultants that try to advise which jurors will be favorable to each side.