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.
JJS, will the courts respond with a pacer indicating when the hearing is scheduled?
I have asked this question a few times but no one has yet to provide a 'definitive' response. Given 1060 - does the settlement conference need to be scheduled ' to occur prior / up to dec 1' or simply 'scheduled by' dec 1 (meaning it can occur any time after, lending itself to further delay by google).
thanks....as expected...
and....an injunction in germany isn't going to inflict incredible amounts of damage on zte friend...all i am saying is these assumptions that:
1. VRNG is guaranteed a win in Germany is foolish, there are never guarantees
2. That they will get an injunction and if so ZTE will settle quickly
3. That a settlement will be global
All of these assumptions are 'best case' scenarios for us longs...never smart to think of only 'best case' scenarios...things seldom occur that way.
yes and then what, we're playing right into their hand of delay like google right?
catch 22
Apparently new pacers out? anyone confirm/post? Stated on STwits
Nice article...am I a conspiracy theorist? hmm.. i think not folks...understand your risk
http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/google-the-halliburton-of-the-obama-administration%E2%80%A8/
nice quote
The sad truth is that this settlement is just the latest, amid a long line of examples, in what has emerged as the cornerstone of Google’s Obama-era business model: break the law, or make the law, in a way that shackles opponents, while boosting their own bottom line – without suffering any real consequences.
While Google scratched Obama’s back, the favor has been returned in spades. It has happened with “net neutrality” regulations and rigged spectrum auctions being pushed through at the FCC, and in addition to this latest settlement, the DOJ’s voluntary 2011 settlement with Google over additional illegal advertising practices.
Yes settle in GERMANY...injunction is not GLOBAL sir...
again, why will they settle GLOBALLY
why do you 'feel zte will settle?' what is this based on? why will they not fight in every jurisdiction vs a patent troll as google has?
a good negotiator understands this is a very big leverage point, no company in their right mind just 'gives that away' sir...
lets think beyond what people 'want' and how rational actors behave in negotiations.
my point on zte was stated. everyone here is 'assuming' some big global settlement.
if there isn't one (a global zte settlement), which is what i am assuming, (ie why will zte roll over in every jurisdiction? because some guy on a mb wants it? or as some on the mb's say the 'chinese don't like being embarrassed' (which i have seen on other boards, complete nonsense, not a reason you settle lol), a bad ruling by JJ still has a major negative impact on this stock.
A German ruling (assuming a win), sure it helps a bit but not much...its minor relative to the money we're talking about with google.
again, everyone making the assumptions that are the 'perfect' outcome for us longs, that's not how you assess risk.
I think if the w/a is proven as valid this stock falls well below $2...if a positive ruling it will have a nice pop (depends on what his ruling is on the RR), but will then retrace until Google decides to actually 'pay'/settle...
if they continue to drag it out via appeals (most likely), a big/sustained move will not occur until those appeals are over.
its pretty binary here friend, if the w/a is considered 'valid' = very bad for this stock, if its considered 'invalid' = very good for the stock.
judge has both sides reports on the w/a, their responses and now has the names of the experts he may or may not call on.
the settlement conference with a magistrate is to take place by december 1. given that it is unlikely a settlement will occur there, it will then be up to the judge. By that point his 'experts' will have had a couple of weeks to go through the information.
I would guess by mid december the unaffiliated experts will have had enough time to review and provide their views to the judge.
He has not stated when he will rule, as clearly he does not want to. But my 'guess' is by mid december he will be in a position to do so if he decides to use his fingers to write a ruling vs picking dingleberries.
the majority of people in this stock are holding for google. zte unless a global agreement in december will help but cannot 'contain' collateral damage from a bad decision by this judge.
it also will hurt the mgmt team's credibility with existing institutions and those thinking about buying. Which means many may sell (tuts), and in a low volume stock that amount of stock coming free kills the pps, add in all the retail longs exiting.
then if you have to start thinking 1-2 years out, zte full deal, asus, others, well then you start having to think about dilution, cash burn etc.
there is incredible risk loaded into this judge's decision sir
what if he uses one expert and that expert says its valid? that's clear right? you're assuming he will use all four. What if he uses both of google's and one of vrng's? etc etc...2-1 is still clear..
just saying its not as clear cut as you are making it...
I have also stated, many times Kevin, that my concern has not been in regards to issues where case law has clear precedent, as this has effectively forced the judge to rule in a particular way.
my issue, again, is where he has had 'discretion', grey areas and how he's behaved, not to mention his commentary towards vrng at many times throughout this trial.
when you are flippant to the winning party on a regular basis, it reflects your bias.
and this situation, is a very 'grey' area...
No disagree, the point of this whole discussion is the impact on the pps.
If the w/a is 'opined on' as valid by the judge this thing will sell off very hard.
If not, the opposite happens because of the squeeze. This is my point, that this judge now holds the short to mid term fate of this company in his hands.
Question then becomes, if you 'trust' him or not..I have shared my concerns...
the fact that this man (Judge) continues to think that google will settle after all of this, stating they won't over and over, stating no discussion till RR is determined etc...
well it should tell you what his intentions have been, there has been no better blatant example of the judge's gaming than that.
anyone with an ounce of common sense can see it was not/is not going to happen yet he seems to continue to want one despite google's own words
so what exactly is this man doing? sticking his thumb up his ass and smelling it?
Thanks for the concern...
"I really want to compliment your passion and enthusiasm posting over 10 msgs per day to discredit HJJ and to scream shorts are dominating."
If you think the shorts aren't in control you are clearly not following this company
"But, I am not buying it. As others said, you need to relax.
"
Thanks, I don't need to relax but appreciate your concern
"Because you waited too long, you are not clearly realizing/believing the trial is speeding to finalize."
Where have I stated the issue I am raising is not speeding to finalize. If you actually read my points, the issue on delays has to do simply with reading into this Judge's intentions.
Moreover, the issue is that validating a w/a will crater this stock
Not exactly sure what you mean by 'waiting too long'. I have been in this stock over a year, my commentary has no influence, nor does anyones on a message board on the share price.
If that's what you're suggesting (that I waited too long and want in and am trying to bash down the pps like is often suggested on these boards) well that's just plain nonsense).
w/a needs to be 'proved' its infringing, that's the issue, i have no doubt it 'actually' is...the risk likes in the proof and whom he believes...
I never said he's going against the jury verdict. I fear many on here don't quite understand that accepting the w/a is valid doesn't change the verdict but it severely diminishes the rr, limiting to may 2013.
In addition, you say you "feel" JJ will sanction Google in some manner for gamesmanship yet he complimented them in the court for it sir. I do feel many on here are failing to really interpret how the judge has behaved here (again in situations where his discretion was needed vs simply following case law, in such situations he has overtly favoured google.)
Justice delayed is justice denied right? Ever ask why a legal team felt the need to insert such a cliche / trite comment into a motion? Tea leaves people, even VRNG is questioning and has been.
Sorry I look at fact patterns. If those fact patterns bother you so much that you are in denial you are welcome to insult.. And suggest conspiracy to attempt to invalidate my opinion. This goes to 1 dollar if JJ says the w/a is valid ... That sir is the reality and risk here . Ignore it if you choose, I don't.
well logic says he asked for new experts for a reason not to just play the circle jerk game right?
why don't you seem to understand, that while your commentary is 100% logical, and while most here, including myself believe the w/a is a red herring....
that what we 'believe' means nothing.
what matters, in the eyes of the law is
1. Google claimed a w/a
2. They provided documentation and proof of it (that something exists - valid w/a or not)
3. Each side remarked on it
4. The judge now asks experts if its valid or not
5. If he agrees with an expert (who is paid for by google, who is saying its valid), then its valid
6. It doesn't matter that they didn't patent it, it doesn't matter if they faked it, all that matters is the judge relies on an opinion that says the w/a is real.
That is as simple an explanation as it gets. The judge can't say well I don't think you really have one guys because you didn't patent it, because you didn't claim it earlier, etc etc..
They said they have one, it now just depends on whose argument he accepts...
the original two experts have no bearing on this w/a nonsense...
Folks, it doesn't matter what we think based on logic here about whether the w/a is valid or not.
My point is very simple. The decision of whether it's valid or not, is now up to whom the judge chooses to believe as more credible/better understood and if he chooses 1, 2 or more experts to rely on.
Whether Google would have filed an MSJ, a patent application etc etc has no bearing.
Reality is what he determines is reality at this point, regardless of what our own internal logic tells us (and most would concur that the w/a is bs)...
But if the judge relies, for instance, on one expert who's paid by google, who will clearly side with google, well we're up the creek.
We can say, 'no way he'll do that etc etc' but my concern is I have never trusted this man and that's whats on the line now...
Simply, its in his hands and he can choose whatever suits his fancy
the issue here is that this process is 'effectively proving or disproving' it...
my experience in the tech world tells me (as many others have said), there is a very low probability the w/a is valid.
the concern i have raised is not what is indeed 'true or not' its what the judge PERCEIVES to be true or not, based on the expert report(s) he decides to rely on that matters.
effectively, this company's pps is now right back to square one (figuratively and actually as we can see from friday's close). Why is that? Because its now up to the Judge, do we actually 'win' what was expected a year ago, or do we get baboozled by a fake w/a that was 'sold' well...
I would disagree with that comment about using both experts. He has stated in his ruling that he may or may not use 1, 2, all etc...
He has left the door wide open to pick the side he wants, this is the CRUX of my point...
Unless I read it wrong but please do read it again and correct me if so.
ah ok thanks for the clarification...
LOL! too much information bro!
thanks
Not an issue of not believing but having others such as JJ who I am aware is well versed in law is more comfort to me vs someone who's posts I have seldom seen/read.
Effectively, its now in HJJ's hands and the so called 'independent' experts who are not independent.
Sounds promising lol
nope none at all..i just don't like that i am hearing that the 'experts' are not independent (paid by each side) and that a judge who's been questionable in the very least (in my view), can simply select one expert to support what he may already want...
any views on my questions?
Additional question (JJS if you can respond would be great) on W/A process.
I am quite concerned about this judge simply selecting the side that suits his activist stance. No need for anyone to debate with me on that, its my view and is what it is....but related to that and a partial mitigant is related to the process in regards to the W/A, and the ability of VRNG to at least challenge any contrary opinions that the w/a is valid.
Questions.
1. Who pays for the experts here? Each side their own? Both sides simply pool the costs etc? All this matters for the issues below and whether or not these experts are truly independent. Clearly, if google is paying its expert, expecting independence is nonsense.
2. What is the process in regards to the w/a decision. Do both sides submit expert reports, then have the opportunity to respond to those reports?
3. Is there a 'mini hearing' much like the trial where each side's lawyers can cross examine the experts if the views are differing?
4. What happens if the judge simply chooses one side's expert and its not VRNG's / in favor of VRNG, do they get a chance to battle that opinion?
All of these matter in my mind as to whether I am willing to stay long through this W/A decision. I do not trust this judge when it comes to decisions that are not grounded in case law (ie he has little scope for lateral movement). Where he has made discretionary decisions it typically has not been in favor of VRNG and it is worrisome.
Anyone with insight into this process, please comment and thanks in advance.
Poll - who truly trusts this judge
Curious...seriously, after all we've seen, who here really still has 100% faith this judge is not compromised, not taking/acting on his own activist stance.
Who believes, when they look at this case in its entirety, that we can really trust this judge?
Curious
My vote, I don't think we can.
yes agreed on the independence, which is why its interesting that vrng states that they used a search firm and have not provided details.
I do not see such a statement from QE/ Google and a betting man says they know these people in some form...
Not that a statement means anything coming from that group anyways. I find this whole process absurd. I cannot understand why the court does not appoint experts.
Its beyond absurd, this judge is a f'ing cartoon character he's so stupid, or he's on the take, or both....since you can't even script this stuff...
ok thanks... do you know this as fact? or just your view?
yes so therefore they are not independent and a conflict exists...if that's the case what's the point of this?
so HJJ doesn't appear to be on the take, when he is. That's why companies hire consultants right? So management can make decisions that won't be liked but they can point to the 'consultant'...
Clear as day...well played google, well played, and you too Dishonorable JJ...
Extricated himself from any bad light very well, now he just points to the experts and says, hey I didn't say it..they did.
Pretty clear what's happening...Google escapes out the back door
Actually it was a real question...if they are being paid, how are they independent, that by itself creates a conflict of interest.
If that's the case, why is the court even bothering? why not use the exiting experts? bc what, VRNG's expert was better?
Wow... if that's the case (they are paid) this is getting more absurd by the minute.
Anyone know if these 'independent' experts are paid? I would assume no as independent would suggest that but curious if there is anyone who can confirm
thanks in advance.
yeah i know the story..."I saw the gold! it's there!"
lol...sorry to hear you lost money on that
yes, and agreed. however, i wouldn't be surprised to see qe ask for one, given it is a 'weekend and a holiday' lol