Kenny, while and interesting theory, I respectfully disagree.
1. The 8k w ZTE mentioned it was a worldwide license so this would defeat your argument about other subsidiaries etc.
2. In regards to Cliff's comment, perhaps I didn't explain, he mentioned a one time payment and no more, nothing else coming. The fact he stated this says there was no more - especially when combined with number 1 above.
3. While I agree the timing of that confidentiality document with the SEC and this seem to imply something more, you forget that the company did mention they were in talks with multiple SEP users for settlement months ago. I will concede it was weird to see a 8k that late after settlement then this, the timing is odd, but none of us are lawyers, it could be par for the course.
4. Logic would say based on 1,2, legal disclosure issues, and the PR that mentioned talks with others that this was another SEP user. Hopefully a small fry as I said and not someone like Huawei - but again, non litigation doubles are welcomed regardless at this stage.
5. Other's have mentioned maybe this has to do with Fli-Charge - again not in my view. Anyone infringing on fli-charge patents would not be selling enough at this stage to warrant an $8 mil payment. That product is not ubiquitous enough yet. I believe it has alot of utility and will be popular, and such the patents will have value but not to that extent at this stage.
6. As for the confidentiality on who's paying us there are a number of reasons for this
A. Any party agreeing to pay $8 mil without public litigation may not want other NPE's to know it has done so. The threat of fighting in the courts is always a good deterrent regardless of whether it is used or not. By it becoming public knowledge they settle, others may see an 'easy target'.
B. VRNG would want to keep it private for leverage reasons. It may be low or adequate depending on who the infringer was. If that company is public, others can then back into what the rate was / is and use it as the 'benchmark'. Regardless, you never want other parties to know what you agreed to as you want to be able to negotiate each license with any infringer by starting at the extreme end. When another infringer can back into the numbers you settled with another party for it reduces leverage on your side. While the ZTE amount was public the agreement also stated it was 'not frand' Thus, if any other company want to points to that agreement VRNG can state both parties agreed it wasn't frand and can't be used as a proxy.
7. Since we've seen no pacers on DTV and Lowes yet, this doesn't appear to be related to them. Which is good on the DTV side I would think.
8. Hopefully this wasn't Huwaei but we will never know. Regardless, $8 mil with almost no cost is finally a positive win for us and if from the SEP patents, takes a bit of the sting off the ZTE deal as it has saved us litigation costs.
Just my opinion
