Seeking Alpha

Ambrosenyc

Ambrosenyc
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View Ambrosenyc's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • 3 Reasons Why Shorting Vringo Right Now Is A Bad Idea [View article]
    PTSD Trader - I agree. RR base % is by far the most important issue in saga, assuming Judge Jackson will deny G's JMOLs.

    Adam - G argued V's past/future damages must be tied to the “smallest salable patent-practicing unit" per LaserDynamics. Do you think Becker's 20.9% passes this test? It appears that the 20.9% base could be broken down to incremental revenues from accused and unaccused SmartAds features. But G never admitted those details into evidence.

    Your thoughts are greatly appreciated. Thanks!
    Jan 25 08:05 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: An Analysis Of The USPTO Re-Examination Debate [View article]
    Dan -

    Please stop threatening fellow SA members, including the author here, with your defamation and libel allegations. I'm sure you've read NYT v. Sullivan. It's axiomatic that you qualify as a public figure under NYT given your role at PubPat. Further, you have consistently availed yourself to the public, either via SA or speaking engagements such as the one you participated at Google's headquarter. Please just let people freely discuss their thoughts and openly critique your pieces. I'm sure very few people on SA actually harbor malicious intentions to defame you. Your threats are just so unnecessary, especially on a public discussion forum. I hope no one is considering self-censorship after reading your post above.

    Please continue to share with us your opinions. I don't always agree with you but I do appreciate your efforts. GL with your investment.
    Dec 14 10:06 PM | 12 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: Value In The Jury's Mistake [View article]
    Again, the necessary question to ask is: 3.5% or even 4/5% of what revenue base? JJ cannot skip this question and just throw out a number for future royalty.
    Dec 14 05:01 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: Value In The Jury's Mistake [View article]
    Financemc,

    I agree with your conclusion. That's exactly my view as well.

    But I read the Esquire Radio case differently, "That the jury RETURNED an award of $269,689.89 on its special interrogatory form" appear to mean that the jury mistakenly decided $269,689.89 was the damage amount they wanted to grant.

    It's also worthy to note that courts broadly construe the meaning of "clerical mistakes". It includes not only court clerks' mistakes, but also "clerical" mistakes caused by jurors and judges.

    It is proper to use Rule 60(a) to correct a damages award that is incorrect because it is based on an erroneous mathematical computation, whether the error is made by the jury or by the court. Errors of a more substantial nature are to be corrected by a motion under Rule 59(e) or 60(b). Hendrick v. Avent, 891 F.2d 583, 588 (5th Cir. 1990)
    Dec 14 01:55 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Future Damages At Ongoing Royalty Rate Of 3.5% Very Likely [View article]
    Modernist,

    You tried to imply the contributor here (a JD candidate) is not as qualified in the field of law compared to D. Ravicher (a lecturer at Cardozo Law). So I borrowed your logic and compared Ravicher to Stout/Cohen (both established players in the patent game). What's the matter here? Am I wrong? Dan's success as a patent lawyer is no where near that of Stout/Cohen, at least in terms of $$ won. It's like comparing Jeremy Lin to Lebron/Wade.

    Ok, so maybe they're not buying stocks on the open market. So what? They both have large stakes in the company. Cohen serves as the Head of Litigation. Do you expect them to put all of their savings into Vringo to prove that they're in bed with Vringo. Let's be realistic here.

    Since you so strongly believe in Vringo's demise, why don't you put your entire savings on the line and short the heck out of Vringo. I'm not claiming there's 100% chance that Vringo will succeed in the end. I don't know that and some of the smartest people on SA don't know that. But I am comfortable with the risk/reward here and that's all I'm looking for was an investor.
    Dec 14 01:41 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: Value In The Jury's Mistake [View article]
    Wlogan,

    I appreciate your response.

    I 100% agree with you that it's not so clear cut here that the jury made a transposition error which caused the past damage amount to reduce from $158 to $15.8m. I also agree with you that JJ may not want to challenge jury's award without some sort of declaration from the jury. However, JJ must clarify which revenue base - 20.9% or 2.8% - is the applicable foundation for calculating supplemental damage and future royalty. So from this angle, would you agree that JJ will HAVE to address jury's seemingly inconsistent past damage # because otherwise there will be apparent inconsistencies between past and future damage awards.

    Also, this Second Circuit case (under para 29), ruled that an transposition error on the special interrogatory form was clearly a clerical error and thus the District Court did not abuse its discretion in making the amendment.
    http://bit.ly/UhBUfv
    Dec 14 01:15 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Future Damages At Ongoing Royalty Rate Of 3.5% Very Likely [View article]
    So if J. Jackson isn't going to change the past damage amount, what revenue base % (2.8% or 20.9%) is he going to use to award future ongoing royalty? Do you have a position on this issue?

    I just don't see how Jackson can throw out a future damange $ w/o clarifying what is the correct revenue base %.
    Dec 14 02:34 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Future Damages At Ongoing Royalty Rate Of 3.5% Very Likely [View article]
    I just want to point out that Stout/Cohen together have scored billions from patent litigation; Ravicher has won how much?! Depending on if you think a law lecturer (not a tenured professor yet) w/ $0 winnings is a good investment right now, this could be one of many indicators to take note of.

    How you like them apples...
    Dec 14 02:34 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: Value In The Jury's Mistake [View article]
    wlogan,

    I've done some legal research on FRCP60(a). There are several Supreme Court decisions that concluded district court judges have broad discretion to rectify clerical errors per 60(a). Hence, the issue here is not whether JJ has the authority to rectify an error. Instead, the relevant question is whether he will choose to exercise discretion.

    I think the higher courts will not distrub JJ's final decision as long as it is facially reasonable and not arbitrarily. Would you agree with this proposition?
    Dec 14 02:34 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Will Patent Office Eliminate Vringo's Right To Future Royalties From Google? [View article]
    Dan, many thanks for a well-written summary of PTO's reexamination procedures. That said, have you actually looked at Vringo's patents? Since you're a patent expert, we'd much appreciate a patent-specific analysis. Thanks.
    Dec 13 10:16 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Preview Copy Of Article On PTO Risk To Vringo Royalties [View instapost]
    ok what is your current position?
    Dec 13 10:10 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Preview Copy Of Article On PTO Risk To Vringo Royalties [View instapost]
    Dan - You previously stated that Vringo's patents are valid (in your articles and your tweets). I guess you no longer maintain that position?
    Dec 13 02:56 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: Vringo's Damage Calculation Looks To Be Reduced [View article]
    Steve,

    Again, thanks a great deal for your hard work!

    I have a procedural question for you: can the parties go back to settlement negotiations once the trial begins next Tues? I am curious as to how much time pressure is on GOOG to settle.
    Oct 10 02:52 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
13 Comments
18 Likes