is... buying more shares
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
I'll keep my eye on ARCW. It really has rocketed over the last year or so. Quite an impressive chart.
Thanks.
Nice trade on VJET calls. Good thing you took profits when you did.
I bought some VJET shares this AM. Not sure if $15 is the bottom, so I am treading carefully. That's the big 3D Name I stayed away from... until now. Catching these falling knives isn't my specialty, so I'm planning to buy more if it keeps falling in the days ahead.
A Form SC 13D issued today.
Everyone ready for the 1:100 reverse split?
Hypothetically speaking, if it happened today, that would put PPS at $2.15 which is kinda scary since the insiders get to exercise options at a strike of $0.50 share. These non-qualifieds can't all be exercised at once since they vest quarterly over a period of 3 years. Of course there are also convertibles that don't have such a vesting schedule. A lot of those are executable within 60 days.
So at some point there will be a money grab. Just hard for me to guess how soon it will be and how much. I think over time this becomes a better spec play, but the reason I have a little scratch in the game already is because of the people involved and the quality of the MVP patents.
It's gonna be a bumpy, wild ride.
I got back into SSYS today
Well another brutal & bloody day on the Nasdaq. I've been stopped out of most of my trading positions in tech stocks. EONC is one of the few that is bucking the trend.
DSS's future hasn't changed, but this current macro environment isn't helping.
On those shares I lost about 20 cents before I was stopped out.
I purchased again in the $2.40s.
Not all trades are going to be winners and I buy in tranches because I know timing the bottom is impossible.
There is a big difference between buying in tranches at or around what you think is the bottom and buying at the top-end of a colossal downtrend because one does not appreciate that a stock is broken.
Of course, SPEX has been a giant winner for me having bought in the single digits many times and sold in the teens and also the $20s during the massive run from $5 to $28 last year. I was here for the entire ride. And what a ride it was! I believe some could retire a few times over based on my SPEX profits alone.
On top of that, I publicly warned everyone on iHub that buying in the $10s $9s $8s and $7s was a bad move because massive dilution was coming.
I have called this stock phenomenally well as my post history as shown. Thanks for bringing it up.
Congratulations on buying at $1.90 and buying again at $1.70 and telling everyone that it was a profitable trade even though the stock never recovered since those times and is currently sitting at $1.32.
I think everyone can decide for themselves what is make-believe and what is not. Continue to self-rationalize every failed opinion and conclusion you post publicly.
It truly matters not.
What a terrible assumption.
In no way was my money not being put to good use while I was avoiding the obvious downward movement in DSS.
Yup, getting some shares anywhere under $3 looks like it could pay off big in the future. The lower, the better.
SPEX, as we all know, is extremely volatile and can & will swing wildly at any time. It has the tendency to overshoot on both the top and bottom.
I think this is a good place to add spec shares.
Looks like we agree DSS is a decent price at $1.30
A much better buy than in the $1.90s and $1.70s, as I posted to you back in January.
Alice vs CLS isn't over with the Supremes, but from what we gleaned from the oral hearing, there is less risk for this to impact DSS when the SCOTUS disposition is rendered in the next month or two (or three).
<< I like GOOGs argument that since VRNG only paid $3.2 million for the parents they shouldn't be entitled to this large of an award. >>
Below is a news article from a week ago on a similar argument. No doubt the panel in the VRNG vs. GOOG appeal is aware of recent rulings and the legal justifications that support them.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/01/us-iv-symantec-ruling-idUSBREA3021H20140401
Intellectual Ventures defeats challenge to its patent business
By Dan Levine
Tue Apr 1, 2014 6:28pm EDT
(Reuters) - Intellectual Ventures can seek hundreds of millions of dollars in damages on a patent it bought for less than $1 million, a federal judge ruled on Monday, handing the patent acquisition firm a victory in a key attack on its business model.
A multibillion-dollar company that virtually invented a new market for patents, Intellectual Ventures accused Internet security companies Symantec and Trend Micro in 2010 of infringing its intellectual property. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Delaware, includes a patent on technology that helps detect malicious software embedded in digital content.
IV bought the patent for $750,000 and is currently seeking at least $310 million in damages from the two companies.Symantec and Trend Micro asked U.S. District Judge Leonard Stark to bar IV from seeking such large licensing fees on the grounds that a patent acquired for so little couldn't possibly be worth so much.
The argument threatened IV and other patent acquisition firms whose primary business depends on buying patents to win licensing fees, instead of manufacturing products.
IV argued that the figure represents fair compensation given how extensively Symantec and Trend Micro products rely on the technology. In a brief order on Monday, Stark denied Symantec's motion to exclude IV's damages argument from the case.
A detailed ruling from Stark was filed on the court docket but was not publicly available on Tuesday. Representatives from Symantec, Trend Micro and IV declined to comment.
Since its founding in 2000, privately held IV has raised about $6 billion from investors and argues that it creates an organized mechanism for innovators of all stripes to capitalize on their ideas. IV's investors include major tech companies like Microsoft and Apple.
Over the years, though, IV and other firms like it have faced criticism from the technology industry, which argues that patent litigation and royalty payments have become a burdensome tax on innovation, and that firms like IV that do not primarily make products are exploiting the patent system.
The debate has caught fire in the U.S. Congress, where a proposal to make it easier to fight patent lawsuits passed the House of Representatives last year and is currently pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday heard arguments in a case that could impose new guidelines on how the government issues software patents.
Two other software security firms that IV sued, Intel Corp's McAfee unit and Check Point Software Technologies Ltd, both settled on undisclosed terms. Symantec and Trend Micro chose to fight, though no trial date has been set.
The case in U.S. District Court, District of Delaware is Intellectual Ventures vs. Check Point Software et al., 10-1067.
(Reporting by Dan Levine in San Jose, California; Editing by Eric Walsh and Leslie Adler)
BRIEF FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
CAFC Case#: 14-1233 (Appeal numbers 14-1233 and 14-1289 combined)
Document #: 33
Filed: 04/08/2014
PDF Document link: Google's CAFC Brief - Document 33 (166 pages)
I agree RE: current valuation
MARA is trading at a fraction of the valuation of other publicly traded IP companies that have much weaker patent portfolios (in both size and scope), much riskier business models, and nothing close to the patent monetization & execution history of MARA (and IPNav).
MARA's day will come. It might take an uplisting. It might take several quarters of sustained earnings and growing revenues. It might take qualified institutional coverage and/or investment.
Or it might happen in the next few months without any of the above. We shall see.
LOL !!
Nic,
This board lives on!!!
LOL. You can assume anything you want.
Just like I can assume that the majority of people will exaggerate on an anonymous message board. Holding a poll on shares owned with no quality control measures pretty much guarantees the results will not yield an accurate reflection of iHub ownership in VRNG.
Real investors come here to share and discuss factual information and discourse regarding their VRNG investment. Those who can't contribute logic and facts can only resort to one liners and pissing contests about their bank balance. Both of which are a colossal waste of time.
Looking on PACER at all of the cases he is involved in, including some at the Federal Circuit, it shows a motion to withdraw counsel for all cases.
So by your logic, every single case he is involved at with Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati was going terribly wrong and so he decided to recuse himself from each case and leave the law firm on top of it.
Seems like a stretch.
Sometimes things are simply as they seem to be: A lawyer wants to take some time off for personal reasons not related to your investments.
The Federal Circuit is making its own ruling on the matter.
This is CAFC case # 14-1232 and oral arguments have already been made. So yes, the ruling could come any day. It could also take many more weeks. We simply do not know as the CAFC moves at its own speed.
Here is the link to the oral argument hearing for VirtualAgility Inc v. Salesforce.com, Inc.:
http://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=2014-1232.mp3
No. Alice vs CLS is a Supreme Court case.
The defendants filed a motion with CAFC to stay the district court case on Jan 17th. So even though Judge Gilstrap denied the EDTX motion to stay, VirtualAgility is still waiting on the Federal Circuit's disposition of the same issue.
Source: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/texas/txedce/2:2013cv00011/141636/146/0.pdf
Yes, people have a habit of believing what they want to believe -- even if facts, logic, and history disagree with their perspective. The DSS board has some perfect examples of this today.
It's a free world, and people can do what they want. I only try to help out by keeping things real. With VRNG, there has been so many unrealistic expectations since the beginning that I hope by now people can see the light.
This is a good case if anyone wanted to study how individuals exaggerate their personal holdings on an anonymous message board.
If you cut the number of reported VRNG shares owned by respondents in half, I would say the overall total reported would still be grossly overstated.
I have witnessed hundreds of lawyers withdraw from patent infringement cases over the years. It is extremely common. Considering each firm has dozens of individuals helping them on each case, having one person take a leave of absence, retire, move on to another case, switch law firms, change professions, etc. means absolutely nothing.
In this case, there are ten or so companies listed as defendants. One lawyer out of all of the attorneys involved has withdrawn after the case was stayed by a federal judge.
Maybe this one lawyer is a quitter. Maybe he isn't. It is his life, he can choose to do what he wants. Whatever his personal reason for leaving the firm (not just the case, he left WSGR as well) it has no bearing on this lawsuit.
Your idea is wrong. First it is NOT "they". It was just one person.
Second, Mr. Shatzer is taking time off to be a father. It says so right on his linkedin profile.
Really, it takes 10 seconds of DD using Google to find this information out... as opposed to forming opinions shaped by investor confirmation bias.
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/larry-shatzer/22/898/5
Larry Shatzer ("Taking a Little Time Off")
Larry Shatzer's Overview
Current:
Dad at Shatzer Family
Past:
Partner at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati
Partner, Chair IP Litigation Practice Group at Foley & Lardner LLP
Partner/Associate at Adduci, Mastriani & Schaumberg
Associate at Levine, Mattson, Orr & Young
I only see one lawyer withdrawing, and that was Larry Shatzer.
One attorney withdrawing is commonplace. That's much different than multiple (or all) attorneys resigning. As this case is stayed, it makes sense someone is being freed up to work on other cases.
Again, please be careful what you share from PACER because if it is not factually correct or provided in proper context it can lead investors to form misguided opinions based on misinformation.
OK Got it. Thanks!
Just wanted to clarify and make sure I didn't miss the news.
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:14-cv-00274-TJC-JRK
U.S. District Court
Middle District of Florida (Jacksonville)
Date Filed / Doc # / Docket Text
04/02/2014 12 NOTICE of Appearance by Patrick P. Coll on behalf of Google Inc. (Coll, Patrick) (Entered: 04/02/2014)
04/02/2014 11 ORDER granting 8 Defendant Google Inc.'s Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint for Patent Infringement. Defendant shall have up to and including 5/1/2014 to file a response to the Complaint (Doc. No. 1). Signed by Magistrate Judge James R. Klindt on 4/2/2014. (MDC) (Entered: 04/02/2014)
03/31/2014 10 Case reassigned to Magistrate Judge James R. Klindt. New case number: 3:14-cv-274-J-32JRK. Magistrate Judge Patricia D. Barksdale no longer assigned to the case. (DSY) (Entered: 04/01/2014)
03/31/2014 9 ORDER of recusal: the Court directs the Clerk of Court to reassign this case to another United States Magistrate Judge. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patricia D. Barksdale on 3/31/2014. (mr) (Entered: 03/31/2014)
03/28/2014 8 UNOPPOSED MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1 Complaint for Patent Infringement by Google Inc. (DeVault, John) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Patricia D. Barksdale. (Modified on 3/31/2014 to edit text) (DSY). (Entered: 03/28/2014)
03/26/2014 7 PROOF of service by Visual Real Estate, Inc. (Crawford, Angela) (Entered: 03/26/2014)
03/26/2014 6 PROOF of service by Visual Real Estate, Inc. (Crawford, Angela) (Entered: 03/26/2014)
03/25/2014 ***PRO HAC VICE FEES paid and Special Admission Attorney Certification Form filed by attorney Jesse Hindman, Kevin Hamilton, Sean C. Cunningham, Erin P. Gibson, Jacob Anderson, Richard T. Mulloy, appearing on behalf of Visual Real Estate, Inc. (Filing fee $60 receipt number JAX011971.). (BMW) (Entered: 03/26/2014)
03/14/2014 5 CORPORATE Disclosure Statement by Visual Real Estate, Inc.. (Crawford, Angela) (Entered: 03/14/2014)
03/12/2014 4 NOTICE of designation under Local Rule 3.05 - track 2. Signed by Deputy Clerk on 3/12/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Case Management Report form, # 2 Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction form)(MD) (Entered: 03/12/2014)
03/11/2014 3 Patent Report sent to Alexandria, VA. (AET) (Entered: 03/11/2014)
03/10/2014 2 SUMMONS issued as to Google Inc. (AET) (Entered: 03/11/2014)
03/10/2014 1 COMPLAINT against Google Inc., with Jury Demand (Filing fee $ 400 receipt number JAX11820) filed by Visual Real Estate, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Civil Cover Sheet)(AET) (Entered: 03/11/2014)
Are you saying the case was settled? Or that you are glad to have added before they may potentially settle?
Standard operating procedure for defendants is to challenge any patent owner's assertions via re-exams and now with the AIA via inter partes review requests.
At this time, I'm not concerned.
I have added a couple of different times at or under 0.024 in the last 10 days.
Will buy at or under 0.02 if, and that's a big if, the opportunity presents itself.
Apple can't "just buy VHC" because of the the capital structure.
A significant number of shares are controlled by the CEO. Also, based on protective provisions ("staggered Board of Directors" & "blank check preferred stock”), a hostile takeover would be extremely difficult.
Last I checked, the Markman hearing for VirtualAgility, Inc. v. Salesforce.com was scheduled for today (April 2, 2014).
With so much going on recently regarding news of patents @ the Supreme Court, it's surprising how one would even think to look at the FBI as a potential catalyst.
Any bounces in DSS, VRNG, or other PIPCOs has(had) nothing to do with the SEC or the FBI.
SPEX - currently @ $2.8693
to me, this looks like a good place to re-buy some shares
I would say it's much, much, much more likely that IP stocks were up as a result of the post-hearing analysis of market participants in regards to the Alice vs. CLS Bank Int'l case being heard @ SCOTUS. An oral hearing was yesterday.
This is the case that has the potential to affect software patents and the patent eligibility of abstract ideas in general. In other words, there are widespread concerns the Supreme Court could radically change patent laws. And that could affect IDCC and most other PIPCOs as well.
The reaction today seems in line with the viewpoint that SCOTUS has demonstrated it is unlikely to make severe changes in patent law, but each person is to decide on their own... as there won't be a ruling until probably sometime in June at the earliest.
Keep in mind, these are just oral and the high courts (like CAFC and SCOTUS) generally rely primarily on the written briefs to form their decisions.
Here's the transcript: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/13-298_869d.pdf