Seeking Alpha

Invictus

Invictus
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View Invictus' Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Will Patent Office Eliminate Vringo's Right To Future Royalties From Google? [View article]
    Dan is entitled to his opinion just as James Altucher is his. Anyone who thinks the SEC will get involved with this is delusional. Look at a chart the day of the verdict and there you will see raw manipulation - not by any author, rather by an algo. For more insight into algos watch:

    http://bit.ly/UcLoZp
    Dec 13 01:07 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Will Patent Office Eliminate Vringo's Right To Future Royalties From Google? [View article]
    Dan, I think you will get a kick out of this video.

    http://bit.ly/Pvvrcl
    Dec 13 12:11 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Will Patent Office Eliminate Vringo's Right To Future Royalties From Google? [View article]
    Dan has stated previously, "I've reviewed the Bowman and Culliss prior art documents myself and concluded that I do not think they render every asserted claim of the '420 and '664 patent invalid under the clear and convincing evidence standard. Do they have some similarities to the '420 and '664 patent claims? Yes, without question. But are they identical to those claims, or do they render those claims obvious? I'm not so sure, as I see some merit in Vringo's arguments..."
    Dec 13 10:19 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Preview Copy Of Article On PTO Risk To Vringo Royalties [View instapost]
    Dan, You have stated previously, "I've reviewed the Bowman and Culliss prior art documents myself and concluded that I do not think they render every asserted claim of the '420 and '664 patent invalid under the clear and convincing evidence standard. Do they have some similarities to the '420 and '664 patent claims? Yes, without question. But are they identical to those claims, or do they render those claims obvious? I'm not so sure, as I see some merit in Vringo's arguments..."

    What if someone made an investment decision based on your expertise? Now they find out that you have changed your opinion and you no longer see any "merit" in the case. Please explain the inconsistencies.
    Dec 13 08:16 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: The Sky's Not Falling [View article]
    Agree 100%
    Dec 6 10:25 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: The Sky's Not Falling [View article]
    Reason one is a stretch. If you go back to when the MSJ was denied, there was postings littering every chat board on the internet proclaiming outrageous statements about vrng/goog. Once posters spread to news sites (Virginian Pilot) and other high-traffic sites it can influence the jury. Everyone knows the jury isn't supposed to perform research, but the simple truth is they often do. The pre-trial hype articles made Vringo's shareholders a unique bunch, especially given how many amateurs have trading accounts. I'm part of a research group for a wealthy individual & hedge fund and this was a recent phenomenon someone in the group had documented based on past betting-on-lawsuits case studies. Vringo exhibited extreme signs of cocky shareholders. One way to mitigate the effect is to have insiders sell right before & during trial. Long-term it should have no effect on share price. We try to consider every angle during research.

    AIG likely bought part of the Nokia secondary offering. The Nokia patents are fail-safe. The people running vringo are extensively connected and many tech experts placed a high probability the goog case was going to net a cool billion.

    Since '06 RSUs have been favored over options by execs. Using BlackÔÇôScholes options would have probably resulted in a larger initial expense than RSUs. Short-term accounting benefits yet long-term higher actual expenses, and the insiders come out smelling like a rose. Usually, RSUs have long-term incentive plan hurdles to clear - not here though. Good point though.
    Dec 6 08:40 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: The Sky's Not Falling [View article]
    ^ Alan, everything you write is correct, especially of the original I/P backers. I've seen $1.4mm raised from a hedge fund/original backers and $3mm from a loan type agreement. Vringo paid the $3mm loan back. So that original $1.4mm is now worth >$100mm. That's an incredible ROI for just over a year. Google brought up this extensively in pre-trial filings.

    This is from the I/P merger,

    <<(i) each share of common stock of Innovate/Protect, will be automatically converted into the right to receive the number of shares of Vringo common stock, equal to the Common Stock Exchange Ratio, which initially is 3.0176 (subject to adjustment as set forth in the Merger Agreement). This means that 1 share of I/P will become more than 3 shares of Vringo.

    (ii) each share of Series A Convertible Preferred Stock of Innovate/Protect, (total 6,968 shares outstanding bought for 1.8M) will be automatically converted into the right to receive the same number of shares of Vringo Series A Convertible Preferred Stock, which shall be convertible into an aggregate of 21,026,637 shares of Vringo Common Stock. So, 6,968 A shares of I/P can potentially be 21M shares of Vringo. In addition, at the effective time of the Merger, Vringo will issue to the holders of I/P (stock and warrants) warrants to purchase an aggregate of 15,959,838 shares of Vringo Common Stock with an exercise price of $1.76 per share.

    The former stockholders of Innovate/Protect are expected to own approximately 55.41% of the outstanding common stock of the combined company and the current stockholders of Vringo are expected to own approximately 44.59% of the outstanding common stock of the combined company.>>

    I am merely a fly on the wall and I know whatever I think makes no difference in the big picture.

    I do find it repulsive that Ken Lang would have the audacity to sell as much stock during the trial as he did. Other insiders weren't as fortunate on the RSUs and stock option grants, but considering vringo hasn't banked a dime of anything and has used equity financing it is still questionable to be cashing in so soon.

    The only two legitimate reasons I see for the selling: first, they wanted to silence arrogant traders from jeopardizing a positive outcome. Second, they are underpaid with their base salary and RSUs and options are meant to comprise a portion of their compensation. Compare that with the numerous negative reasons for selling.

    Yes, 10b5-1 plans can be amended and they should be amended, especially if they want to gain the support of institutional investors. I know a few hedge funds that won't take a large position in Vringo simply because of the overhead resistance caused by insider selling. Compare the charts with the time and price of the insider sales and you will see a short-term top every time. If they want to send a signal of confidence to the market they need to raise the selling price.
    Dec 6 07:47 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: The Sky's Not Falling [View article]
    Long-term Vringo holds a golden patent for mobile transaction billing and services. I asked a telecom expert to examine the patent, he said virtually any mobile payment system will infringe - virtually <5% chance of a workaround. They are accumulating plenty of intriguing patents for future high-growth markets.
    Dec 6 12:46 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: The Sky's Not Falling [View article]
    It is roughly the amount greater than if the implied royalty base is used.
    Dec 6 12:12 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: The Sky's Not Falling [View article]
    I love how brutally honest you are marpha.
    Dec 6 11:07 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: The Sky's Not Falling [View article]
    Uncertainty does create investment opportunities, it also can inflict pain... With huawei & cisco suits in the pipeline and potentially $400mm from ZTE, a case can certainly be made for an investment versus a trade.

    The private placement buyers were likely shown a scenario where even if the google case was lost they would not lose money over a 3-5 yr time horizon. I always saw most of the undiscovered value in vringo lied in the nokia patents and the fact that nearly everyone dismissed them as obsolete junk.

    With $60mm cash and a $250mm market cap, anything with a NPV after taxes > $200mm makes this undervalued. Using 115mm shares you have $145mm of cash before any earnings. Using a wide range of probabilistic valuation techniques produces a wide swath of valuations. Due to the standards-essential patents having a near 100% probability of being valid and enforceable for past & future infringement, Vringo provides lucrative risk/reward under $4.

    Add to that short interest of 15 million shares and growing - many shorts are using the thesis that Vringo will get $0 from google based on an appeal - and you have lots of forced future buyers if ZTE settles, Cisco & Huawei are hit with suits, or their Google thesis disappoints.

    Of course timing is everything and price action has been all over the place. I think if insiders amended their 105b-1 plans to a higher price this would instantly trade up just based on that.
    Dec 6 11:00 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: The Sky's Not Falling [View article]
    here is an excellant and insightful analysis of the situation:
    http://seekingalpha.co...

    James, that is the 500 million $ ?
    Dec 6 10:16 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: The Sky's Not Falling [View article]
    sdlombardi: Jury Verdict
    http://bit.ly/VIMxt1
    Dec 6 10:03 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: The Sky's Not Falling [View article]
    Most Americans don't understand there is significant differences between 2g & 3g in the U.S. and in Europe. The GSM/UMTS system in Europe was significantly more advanced, and the network construction was massive. ZTE has a 8-core phone coming next year that will put the current quad-core phones to shame; no way they will let an injunction be granted in a vital market.
    Dec 6 09:24 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: The Sky's Not Falling [View article]
    Dan, Thank you for all of your input on Vringo, VirnetX, and ParkerVision. Exchanging ideas is vital to a healthy society, and your thoughts certainly carry credence. Cheers!
    Dec 6 09:01 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
61 Comments
74 Likes