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.
It's nice to see the positive market reaction.
Perhaps less of concern now for most. And for those who are still cautious because of the unknown details, it's an excellent opportunity to scale back their investment and/or take gains from this last run (1.4Xs to 1.8Xs).
337-868 Order # 109: View/Download PDF Version
It's not new. It was posted on Feb 13th right after Ravicher tweeted it early that morning.
It means GOOG has altered its strategy in regards to consolidating various appeals at the Federal Circuit.
It has been discussed in detail for several days on different message boards, blog sites, etc.
I'm reading it, and it looks like a lot of important information is not included.
At first glance, I would say they are hiding some nasty details. Let's see what the market has to say tomorrow.
While those who bought DSS in the $1.90s are congratulating themselves, despite the fact this dropped to the $1.40s shortly thereafter, the rest of us are reading the news.
Looks like DSS raised cash:
http://secfilings.com/searchresultswide.aspx?link=1&filingid=9792800
Signed: February 18, 2014
yup, just printed 5.99 and looking to break into $6 range shortly
B/A is now $5.76 / $5.86
All signs point toward this going to double digits in the near future
Finding some excitement didn't take long. Up 20% as of right now @ $5.71
I'm not sure. Am I ?
LOL
RE: the remand (2/12/14) and Order #45 (2/14/14)
Here they are:
Order Remanding Investigation - Feb 12, 2014 (PDF File)
Order No. 45 - Feb 14, 2014 (PDF File)
hahaha! We are a boring bunch, I will agree with you there!
But if you watch EONC in the next month or two... I promise you it will be anything but boring. Excitement awaits.
Seeing as it a 3 day holiday weekend and the market isn't open until Tuesday - I'm not surprised it's quiet around here.
Hey JJS, is this the "healthy" consolidation we are told to enjoy?
Hahaha. let the good times roll.
I am assuming that there were additional patents (such as European counterparts) that were also part of the confidential agreement and patent re-assignment involving VRNG and ALU.
With ALU being a European company with decades of experience in mobile and telecommunications R&D and patent protection, it makes sense that they would patent the same invention in multiple jurisdictions.
RE: Alcatel (ALU) patents
I thought there was a connection drawn between the ALU patents and the new VRNG Germany lawsuit covering navigation IP.
At least in my head that is the connection I came away with. When that new complaint is available, let's confirm the underlying patent(s) come from ALU.
Can't issue dividends without money in the bank.
Besides, dividends are not for high growth, emerging IP stocks. IMHO.
actually, lots of new crap we didn't know
I'm impressed
Exactly. It's a meaningless metric.
You can say it over and over and over: "The ratio no matter how it is calculated is virtually meaningless"
Not sure why people waste their time chasing rainbows.
wrong number ...try this one:
Date: Thursday, March 21, 2013
Time: 5:00 p.m. Eastern (Vringo recommends dialing in ten minutes in advance)
Domestic: (888) 645 - 4404
Twas a very good day for us!
Thanks to flyersdh for heads up on this one. Having fun!
Agreed -- regarding nothing much should be expected from the CC outside of what was outlined in the PR. We will see what the company has to say.
As for Blackrock, they had nothing to do with issuing a CC or directing VRNG in any capacity. That's ludicrous.
I recommend reviewing msg #50121:
...After buying Barclays' assets three or so years ago now, Blackrock is now the largest asset manager in the world. It goes without saying that Blackrock is a major passive institutional investor. They own iShares, which includes several large Russell 2000 variations -- and other indices -- all of which VRNG is now a part of. Although Blackrock is historically considered an active asset manager, the Barclays assets are major passive index-tracking vehicles.
As I have stated for the umpteenth time -- when we occasionally see these large filings from investment managers like Blackrock, Vanguard, etc. -- what is being reported is related mainly to passive asset management and this time is no different. This is not some big news, especially considering Blackrock has already been reporting a big ownership stake of VRNG in previous filings (because they have so many vehicles that own VRNG as part of underlying index holdings). As Sab reported, Blackrock has recently changed how they are reporting and has recently made several (translated: MANY) increased 13D/G filings across many different equities. Someone needs to cancel the "Blackrock is buying VRNG parade" because there isn't anything to celebrate that we didn't already know about when VRNG became included in the Russell indicies last year.
There is plenty to be excited/bullish about regarding VRNG. This includes the recent judicial rulings concerning GOOG, the apparent progress in the other legal disputes, and much risk being removed from an overall investment perspective. But the discussion concerning Blackrock is being wildly exaggerated by some trying to connect dots that simply do not exist.
Do you think this time your buyout prediction has a better chance of coming true than last year's prediction?
My takeaway from the news is a further confirmation of the ramping up of next gen networks. IDCC has stated they have several key solutions/contributions that are related to future releases of LTE-Advanced and (stop me if you have heard this one before) - perhaps IDCC's mobile licensing efforts will improve with the rollout of future technologies.
Correct, Sab.
Also, the truth about Blackrock that some fail to realize:
After buying Barclays' assets three or so years ago now, Blackrock is now the largest asset manager in the world. It goes without saying that Blackrock is a major passive institutional investor. They own iShares, which includes several large Russell 2000 variations -- and other indices -- all of which VRNG is now a part of. Although Blackrock is historically considered an active asset manager, the Barclays assets are major passive index-tracking vehicles.
As I have stated for the umpteenth time -- when we occasionally see these large filings from investment managers like Blackrock, Vanguard, etc. -- what is being reported is related mainly to passive asset management and this time is no different. This is not some big news, especially considering Blackrock has already been reporting a big ownership stake of VRNG in previous filings (because they have so many vehicles that own VRNG as part of underlying index holdings). As Sab reported, Blackrock has recently changed how they are reporting and has recently made several (translated: MANY) increased 13D/G filings across many different equities. Someone needs to cancel the "Blackrock is buying VRNG parade" because there isn't anything to celebrate that we didn't already know about when VRNG became included in the Russell indicies last year.
There is plenty to be excited/bullish about regarding VRNG. This includes the recent judicial rulings concerning GOOG, the apparent progress in the other legal disputes, and much risk being removed from an overall investment perspective. But the discussion concerning Blackrock is being wildly exaggerated by some trying to connect dots that simply do not exist.
Just did a quick & dirty look at the company's SEC filings and the trades all look to me to be sales that are part of rule 10b5-1 trading plans and not so much of the "sell the pop" type of insider sales investors despise. Most (not all) were derivatives converted to shares and instantly sold upon conversion.
I don't see a big deal here, although these sales can influence the market. This does illustrate the reality of what happens to VRNG at or above $5 and it's a wall to be considered. Also, it's not too shabby that these forms were reported on Friday evening.
All IMHO.
for the 5-0 score, I would replace "merger" with "WA ruling"
This is true. I think however that one of the positives of such a fund is to get more institutional grade money invested in these companies. This can help overall with liquidity and stability.
Personally, I will continue to hold & manage my own basket of 3D printing stocks and avoid hefty expense ratios and other fees related to mutual fund and other vehicles. The fact that there will be more money coming into the sector can be seen as a positive, IMHO.
j2w,
I've been bullish VRNG for quite awhile now. While I have been a proponent of taking gains on repeated price range movements, I've continued to believe a core holding of VRNG shares is a good addition to the spec portion of one's technology (and PIPCO) portfolio.
Over the last 6 or so months, HJJ has systematically ruled in VRNG's favor on key motions that have incrementally reduced the risk of owning VRNG vis a vis a large potential gain. Coupled with the NOK patent monetization potential, VRNG has been undervalued for quite awhile.
After the recent 6.5% RR ruling, VRNG is still very much undervalued (IMHO)... although I do understand there is a an opportunity risk as the timetable for actually recovering revenues is not straightforward - nor is the timing related to the other disputes (ZTE, Tyco, etc.). I did make a small sale early this morning but still holding shares (no options). I plan to sell options in the near future against my core if the premiums remain high.
As for VHC, still own some, yes. Although I'd rather own a "full position" after key positive developments have been announced - which to date have not been. In other words, I hope to be buying more of that one on the way up.
regards
Great calls on VRNG by IP Hawk. Both in terms of timing (changing thesis from neutral to bullish) and in the actual execution of stock price appreciation:
Very nice. Thanks for the heads up.
works for me. I won't remove or edit the link so it will be permanent
LOL. Sounds like an appropriate response to "winning" this one.
Wonder where all the "Judge Jackson is on the take" theorists are now?
No problem, JJS!! You finish up your shopping at Macys or whatever store you are at. :)
Here is the Document (Doc #1088, 6.5% RR ruling)
Doc #1088 (PDF file)
Wow. Thanks for verifying JJS. Awesome news!
Ghart, keep in mind there are recent decisions and future rulings not yet even handed down yet that will most likely be appealed.
GOOG/VRNG have appealed these things piecemeal over the last year or so. It's illogical to assume that elements of the case that not yet even made their way to the Fed Circuit will be put to bed this year.
It's impossible to predict what will be consolidated at the Fed Cir. and when it will happen. Additionally, oral arguments have not yet even happened yet for the early items on the appellate docket.
No need to take your friend's word for it.
According to CAFC's own stats the reversal rate for District court cases was 17% for the rolling 12 month period ending 9/30/2013.
For the period of 2000-2009, reversal rates for Districy Court patent appeals ranged between 8% and 18%.
Here is a link to a good article, although it is nearly 4 years old, that explains some of stats and puts things in proper context (e.g., data can be skewed by claims constructions being overturned):
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2010/04/are-appeals-at-the-federal-circuit-a-coin-flip.html
I also find the study below covering EDTX patent appeals from 2008-2012 very interesting:
http://mcsmith.blogs.com/eastern_district_of_texas/2013/01/guest-post-a-study-of-eastern-district-of-texas-patent-appeals-to-the-federal-circuit-2008-2012.html
KL seemed to drop the ball once or twice (or thrice).
It's common knowledge that DSS's strategy/timing of filing against Salesforce blew up in its face with delays in Cali. Not to mention KL was unsuccessful in having had its case(s) transferred to Cali in the first place.