Seeking Alpha

lemuelua@gmail.com

lemuelua@gmail.com
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View lemuelua@gmail.com's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Vringo's Suit Against Microsoft - What The Past Tells Us [View article]
    @bilton, watch Cuban's interview when he talks about his investment in VRNG. He did it as a hedge for all of his other companies that face patent trolls. Not hypocritical, just practical
    Feb 5 11:19 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo's Suit Against Microsoft - What The Past Tells Us [View article]
    Ed,
    How do you come to the conclusion that VRNG cannot recover for past damages? ("Vringo can hope only for running royalty (calculated at 3.5% in the previous judgment), and forget about past damages") You did not explain your reasoning behind this statement.

    The only reason VRNG was not able to collect past damages against Google was JJ ruled Laches applied because a blog post circa 2005 that Google published. I am not aware of any similar blog post or disclosure that MSFT published.

    Please share your thoughts. Thanks,

    Lem
    Feb 4 08:16 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo (VRNG +3.8%) has added Microsoft (MSFT) to its list of lawsuit targets, alleging the software giant is infringing the two search-related patents (no doubt through Bing) that were asserted against Google and others in a recent Virginia trial. A suit has been filed in the Southern District of New York; Vringo is seeking "past and future compensatory damages." (PR[View news story]
    Go VRNG! I guess Kevin Porter might turn out to be right ;-)
    Jan 31 10:01 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Google Request To Postpone Vringo Ongoing Royalty Motion Ignored [View article]
    I agree with princetonatty44. If JJ orders a 1 day trial with regards to damages, he would not be admitting a mistake. He would be acknowledging a potential mistake of the jury.

    Steve, I would like your thoughts on why you think JJ won't grant a new day ruling.

    Thanks,

    Lem
    Jan 25 10:50 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Google Request To Postpone Vringo Ongoing Royalty Motion Ignored [View article]
    Thank you for stating your price targets Dan. No one will be caught off guard this time.
    Jan 23 04:03 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: Google Did Not 'Flip-Flop' Or Concede To Ongoing Royalties [View article]
    Dan:

    I am not a securities lawyer. So I don't know the ins and outs of market manipulation and trading etc.

    That being said: I don't believe you did anything illegal. However, I do think you were reckless with your first article by not disclosing your price targets (which you did in your second article after you had taken a short position).

    Also, your continual threat of legal action on this site serves to chill the discourse and it does no good in supporting a healthy discussion. There will always be unprofessional people out there who resort to bashing contributors instead of adding to the discussion. You are a professional sir. I urge you to disregard personal attacks as such and respond to legitimate ideas / criticism. Leave the libel / defamation threats to others.

    Best,

    Lem
    Jan 9 01:30 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: Google Did Not 'Flip-Flop' Or Concede To Ongoing Royalties [View article]
    Financemc:

    Adam shed light on the process going forward and gave us a more definitive idea on timing than any other contributor out there. As a holder of February Call options, his ideas are very probative and substantially influence my trading. For example, should I agree with Adam (which I do), I will probably initiate a vertical calendar spread with the short positions in January and February and long positions in the further out months.

    Further, he proposes that Google did not "flip-flop" which is contrary to Dan Ravicher's article. Given the massive move in the stock price which roughly coincided with Dan Ravicher's article, one could reasonably say (as I do) that Adam's ideas and the reasoning behind them are very probative.

    I agree with you that the RR is the most salient issue to most investors, but timing is just as important for investors who are sensitive to time.

    Best,
    Lem
    Jan 9 01:16 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: Google Did Not 'Flip-Flop' Or Concede To Ongoing Royalties [View article]
    Adam:

    Thanks for the article. Very well reasoned and thought out. Sorry so many people are bashing you.
    Jan 8 08:21 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: The Sky's Not Falling [View article]
    Alan: I think my point was that they are not required to disclose the price points at which their plan calls for sales, but thanks for pointing out the fact that some companies do.

    Anyways appreciate your comments. Thanks
    Dec 7 10:48 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: The Sky's Not Falling [View article]
    Invictus: The problem with amendments to 10b5-1 plans, is the public is not privy to the plans. We are only made aware of the trades ex-post. I like how you are thinking though.
    Dec 6 04:30 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo: Guideline Calculations In Future Lawsuits [View article]
    he has longer. read SteveKim's most recent article.
    Nov 13 05:10 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo: Guideline Calculations In Future Lawsuits [View article]
    pointing to the volatility of VRNG on an intraday basis to support your thesis is probably not the most solid back-up one could have.
    Nov 13 05:07 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo: Guideline Calculations In Future Lawsuits [View article]
    this is a US patent. not valid around the world
    Nov 13 12:26 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Did The Jury Miscalculate Or Not? [View article]
    Agreed. I think that was what Joe Small cap said when he stated:

    "While a frustrated Vringo investor might accuse MM's of holding down VRNG, there are many legitimate questions and risks that need to be played out."
    Nov 8 12:48 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Did The Jury Miscalculate Or Not? [View article]
    Alan: In defense of Joe Small Cap there was a lot of talk in the twitter-verse of MM holding down the price of VRNG. I think it is totally fair of him to include that statement in the article. I think the statement draw attention away from a conspiracy theory (MM's holding the price down), to the real facts: ambiguity over the jury verdict.

    Best,
    Lem
    Nov 8 09:57 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
33 Comments
25 Likes