Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
  • The VirnetX Tinderbox  [View article]
    How about this. If they don't think it's worth .56% or more they can just stop using VHC's inventions. I think AAPL's choices thus far have indicated that it is worth at least that amount.
    Jul 12, 2014. 05:50 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • The VirnetX Tinderbox  [View article]
    It still doesn't make any sense that the CAFC would reference this case in a presidential decision, even if it was just to refer to the apportionment of a benchmark product, if they knew they were going to remand based on the jury receiving improper information on damages. Wouldn't they be ruining their own credibility when the entire staff of judges essentially signed off on this citation? They know that people will be reading the Motorola decision for years to come. Why even bother confusing readers by citing a case that they know they will remand on virtually the same issue? It seems to me that they've indicated that calculating damages is rarely/never going to be an exact science and are willing to work with credible damages theories that are backed by evidence and scientific scrutiny.
    Obviously this isn't the chief reason to believe in the likelihood of an affirmation but you have to admit that it favors that outcome.
    Jul 12, 2014. 02:16 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Revisiting The Vipshop And Zulily Investment Call  [View article]
    Yeah, I want a chinese company trading at 132x earnings with tons of insider selling that's raising money for no apparent reason. This should end really well right?
    May 27, 2014. 02:40 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vipshop Smashes Q1 Earnings: Don't Be Surprised To See $250+ Price Targets On The Way  [View article]
    Don't all Chi-frauds operate from the same template? Report ridiculous growth and fantastic terms from their suppliers while maintaining a high level of opaqueness. Of course the give away is that they have plenty of cash but continue to raise money for unknown purposes. The insiders don't take a line of credit against their holdings like a typical US exec would they just simply cash out and look to short their own stock.
    This thing is going down by half or more this summer.
    May 15, 2014. 12:53 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vipshop: Recent Developments Strengthen The Long Case  [View article]
    Should be obvious to all that this is a fraud. Behold the next CCME.
    Apr 23, 2014. 12:14 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX/Apple: What Does Apple Owe?  [View article]
    So it's a lock for AAPL is it? How may puts do you own? Oh, you're just talking out your arse again. Got it.
    Mar 31, 2014. 09:52 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX/Apple: What Does Apple Owe?  [View article]
    In plain English it sounds like you are saying VHC is only entitled to .52% of the profits associated with FT and VPN on demand. This seems to be equitable on it's face. Noble prize winning NBS would indicate that the more equitable solution would be 40% of the profits associated with the increase demand from FT and other infringing products/uses.

    Are you indeed suggesting that VHCis only entitled to.52% of the profit associated with these features?
    Mar 31, 2014. 12:39 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX Vs. Apple At The CAFC: Why VirnetX Will Be Just Fine  [View article]
    You're right. It's very minor when measured against anything else. I just thought 2 methods for 2 very different products might make sense for future royalty calculations.
    They did use Nash to claim 45% of the net net profit for iphone and iPad sales that they could attribute to customer demand for FT did they not?
    Mar 13, 2014. 08:00 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX Vs. Apple At The CAFC: Why VirnetX Will Be Just Fine  [View article]
    I hear ya but it doesn't make much sense to me that the royalty rate would be the same for an upgrade that is specifically for adding FT as it would be for a mobile device that can many different tasks. A RRR of .98% makes great sense for a mobile device but no sense at all for a an upgrade which is soley designed to use VHC's inventions.
    For determining future royalty payments doesn't it make sense to use one method where the invention is the majority of the value and a different method when the invention adds approx 1% of the value.
    My bottom line.... it's worth more than 29 cents in a Mac damn it!
    Mar 13, 2014. 02:48 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX Vs. Apple At The CAFC: Why VirnetX Will Be Just Fine  [View article]
    There's no question that this man can do the Fandango.
    Mar 13, 2014. 01:17 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX / Apple Appeal: Bad News For VirnetX And Other Patent Assertion Entities  [View article]
    The most likely explanation is the parties that they have recently settled with dont have millions of units being sold.
    Mar 13, 2014. 01:08 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX Vs. Apple At The CAFC: Why VirnetX Will Be Just Fine  [View article]
    Hi Jeff, Thanks for the great work here. One thing I dont understand is why would Weinstein admit (at least according to Judge Rader) that the inventions are only worth 29 cents on the Mac upgrade. Wouldn't it make more sense to use NBS on that item and split the net net profits at the 45% rate ( like on the $30 example ) since the primary benefit of the upgrade is the ability to use FaceTime? Obviously I'm confused. Is the 30$ in additional price that Apple intends to receive the mac upgrade or is that just the estimated value of FT in other products?
    It just kind of bothered me that we would let the judges think the invention is only worth 29 cents to VHC in the Mac when it should be worth 45% of the net net profits.
    Thanks a lot!
    Mar 13, 2014. 12:48 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX Vs. Apple At The CAFC: Why VirnetX Will Be Just Fine  [View article]
    So investors should only consider the jury verdict on past infringement not an ongoing royalty stream and not future revenue from 4g LTE A royalties? Do you think other companies should be valued this way or just VHC? See, in the long run it doesn't matter much if the CAFC remands on damages (they won't) , VHC will still be a cash cow as long as their patent claims remain valid.
    Mar 12, 2014. 03:29 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX Vs. Apple At The CAFC: Why VirnetX Will Be Just Fine  [View article]
    I think people most people familiar with the timeline on such matters expect a CAFC ruling in May or June. There wont be much to hold the share price down if they affirm. I don't think you'll want to sell in the mid-20's at that point.
    Mar 11, 2014. 01:23 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX's Royalty Triumph Is Excellent News  [View article]
    So, the "consensus among patent litigators" you were referring to is a couple guys at your firm?
    Mar 10, 2014. 03:20 PM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment