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.
So did Ellen leave on her own or was she pushed?
You're right, it's just been one underwhelming event after another as far as I'm concerned. And the error/decimal thing kinda kicked it off. Well, the laches, then the decimal. We've been trying to recover ever since. If the jury hammered them with a number that was accurate, the public sentiment is probably less apprehensive.
Indeed. This judge inspires zero confidence that justice will be served.
Did we win this case or did we lose it, cuz the way things are going, you can't really be sure you heard what you think you heard.
The sad part is, I have no confidence in Judge Jackson to do the right thing. If it seems logical and warranted, he's liable to be unpredictable.
We could use a Ravicher article ripping these latest Google shenanigans. His twitter comments indicate he's probably got some strong feelings on these latest development. He's quick to post the anti-Vringo article when he's short, but he seems a little loosey goosey with the pro-Vringo articles.
All of what you say is true. What we don't know is how long Google's been working on this workaround. I'm going to go out on a limb and say they're not flying by the seat of their pants on this. Whatever due diligence there is to implementing such a thing, we don't know that in the couple of years this whole thing has been going on, that this hasn't been a contingency all along. Pull it out of your back pocket if you lose, maintain status quo if you win.
Not necessarily. They're acknowledging they lost the case, not that they concede they infringed. So by using Vringo's argument and explanation of how their patented system works and the elements of Google's system that Vringo says are infringing, Google's suggesting they will implement a workaround that removes ambiguity. If such a thing is even possible. Like "this is what you said was the problem, so we completely changed it."
The workaround part is what matters. You can't collect royalties on a patent that's not being infringed. If Google is to be believed.
Tanking on this development.
I bought some shares this morning and that's what happened to me. Got my order filled at .0465. I went into my Scottrade wondering why I had all this extra money, cuz my order should've cleaned it out.
That's probably sound advice. I don't believe any timelines in this case. The ruling will come when it comes. The 25th will come and we'll still be sitting here. Probably on the 26th, the 27th, for a little while longer.
I always found this term "patent troll" kinda lame. If you don't own the patent your tech or service is based on, you don't have a leg to stand on, IMO. Obtain the patent before you use it, or pay the person that has it now. But using someone else's patent hoping nobody notices and then complaining when you get caught is for the birds. The so-called troll was just smart enough to figure out what thief was up to.
So what does this all really mean? I only care about one thing right now, and that's the judge's final ruling. Do all these appeals impact the timeframe for that at all?
I think you always know what's going to happen. All you have to do is take what SHOULD happen, and look for the opposite. I stopped falling for the banana in the tailpipe, red herring, false alarm, etc with this stock a long time ago. And don't listen to anybody positing a timeline. It'll happen when it happens and it'll probably be less than you want.
I'm long and still expect good things to happen (eventually), but I've learned to keep expectations of rational market behavior with VRNG in check.
Are you surprised ? lol
I think people aren't suggesting the judge will be pissed based on who wins or loses, but his emotional ties are to his own ego. On a "how dare you question my judgement" basis. The counter argument naturally is, he's a professional judge that presumably takes his duties very seriously, you would think that wouldn't be a factor. But stranger things have happened.
The whole argument about the judge basically is questioning the judge's integrity though, which is dicey territory.
I said it a couple days ago, there's only one bit of news that matters. News that there's going to be news in the future isn't it. lol
My guess is it's just an update on the judge's ruling.
Indeed. And the reactions to it are the same way. This stock is a dog on the porch. Throw the stick and everyone goes chasing after it. Settlement or final judge's ruling, that's all I'm gonna react to. Everything else is window dressing. Even rumors of settlement and judge's ruling aren't enough.
Typical middling response with this stock.
I'm happy for anything involving this stock, but I'll remain calm until we know what kinda money we're talking about.
I'd say the chances of no ruling and a CC with nothing of note to report are about 100%.
Truer words have never been spoken.
I anticipate nothing will happen. Plus or minus 5 cents all day until it closes back where it started. Seems like something earth shattering needs to happen to see any movement worthwhile. Short of a judge's ruling, don't hold your breath to see anything different than we've seen for the last umpteen weeks.
It's already coming back.
That's a good call by you.
This is the most confounding stock. No good reason why this should be in the low 3s still. Not that it needed to have shot to the moon already, but this $3 business is for the birds.
So what is there to make of this?
Even the haters on SA are ripping Ravicher for this charade. He may have gone to the well one too many times.
So who is it that's actually listening to Ravicher? He can want to manipulate all he wants to, but there's gotta be people that listen to his nonsense. I'm trying to hold on to the belief that no one person can manipulate a stock like this unless they're playing with insane money, but it's gotta be more than coincidence everytime he makes a peep, the stock reacts.
You really didn't read or understand what Kevin said. He didn't say Google was going to pay $24. I would suggest reading it more carefully.
At it to the (growing) list of things that don't have much of an impact on this stock.
Nice job, something like that shouldn't be allowed to fly under the radar. He won't get away with this if enough people refuse to let him.
You're talking about the running royalty rate going forward, I'm talking about the miscalculation of the past damages award. Two totally different discussions.
"I have argued that the most likely outcome is that the jury verdict will be left undisturbed, with nary an upward or downward revision."
"I believe the verdict is quite safe, and that the Court would be highly unlikely to disturb it, whether downward, or upward."
That sounds like a longshot to me. So according to Steve, anybody hoping the Judge makes a correction on the damages award shouldn't hold their breath. EDVA seems much more hopeful and optimistic on that front.
I get that the running royalty rate is the bigger deal at this point.
The only thing about that is Edvacourt seems much more confident about an upwardly revised damages award being very much in play, which is counter to Steve Kim's view, who seems to think it's a longshot, at best.
That's how it's always been with this stock. Bad news is a disaster, good news does nothing.
Yeah, I don't see how that won't be killer, regardless of whether they have any hopes of succeeding in the long run. Let's hope they're bluffing.
I hear you. I added some more on the dip and wondered if I was digging my hole deeper. i have faith, but this nonsense after actually winning is testing it. I just keep telling myself to have patience and my patience will be rewarded in time. Fortunately, I can sit on my shares and let it play out for a while.
The Kim's and Altucher's of the world don't come out hard enough with counter arguments to pieces like that. Not that they should, they're smarter than that, the fact of the matter is when dealing with the law, nothing's for certain. But when all you get are firm, strong bashing articles, and unsure, cautiously optimistic positive ones, I can see doubts rising in some people's minds.