'Political BS' and relation to case
Normally, I would agree, but this stock is one of the exceptions. The reason that there are political elements in this stock are: 1:) everything at the moment depends on what this one judge decides on the case. Part of the expectation on what she will do, and how she will decide, can partly be gleamed from how she got her appointment and why she was appointed by the administration that appointed her. While not an absolute, one could normally expect they would recommend the appointment of a judge they think will rule on things as they see them. As an example, every time a Supreme court judge comes up for a confirmation hearing there is a big discussion on it, since that person has the potential for a few decades to be the deciding vote on cases that have not even been started yet. 2:) This is a patent case, and recently there was been a lot of discussions and even a few bills introduced dealing with 'patent trolls', i.e. the belief that some companies should not be allowed to prosecute patents or certain kinds of things should not be patentable, like software patents.
Point #1 does not always work out as expected by the administration making the appointment. There were some judges that seems to lean one way on their politics or legal writing, but once the appointment was confirmed and the judge had life tenure, their case decisions surprised a lot of people.
Unfortunately, since those are partly political issues, there is no way to discuss them without a discussion of the current administration and their effects on patent legislation.
Louis J. Desy Jr.
