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.
When that earnings call was held, I looked up the price of Arris modems. I think that's where that 2 billion got stuck in my head, 200 million at the lowest price.
Again?! My bad. Just wishful thinkin' on my part.
Remember, they were sold to other suppliers not being sued, here in the U.S. and abroad. Arris also sold them retail direct to consumers via Amazon. But there may be customers of the 13 using modems made by other suppliers as well.
I reminded everyone Arris announced the sale of their 2 billionth modem in december 2018 during their earnings call in January 2019, just before they filed with PTAB. Of course, that doesn't mean they are/were all in use at the same time. Question right now is how many have the 13 been using each month for the last several years.
This is what I meant when I said these execs and lawyers don't think like the rest of us.
There's a Mark Hagan in San Diego who is CIO at AMN Healthcare, and another who is a convicted felon -- bankruptcy fraud in 2013. Not sure if they are the same person. But definitely not a fictitious person. That brief was very amateurly written. If he was previously convicted of a crime (as Sharpie points out in the first paragraph) how can he be fictitious? And if he was previously convicted of a crime, I'm not sure it has any bearing on the present case.
According to him, he quit.
They need to do something about the AS.
The guy's a snake.
"The Consultant may also terminate this agreement if the Consultant is in breach of the Agreement itself." And the company is still liable for the Consultanat's entire fee? Who would sign such an agreement? I would resign, too, as soon as they signed it and insist on collecting my fee. I'm not sure that's even a legally binding contract, tbh.
My life is going to the dogs after this. Lol.
I wasn't talking about the amount so much as the arrogance. Lawyers and people in executive level positions at multi billion dollar corporations don't think like you and I, Scruff. That is to say, they don't think rationally. They think they're always in control. And when they aren't, they think they can always turn it around and regain control.
If they decide to appeal, they can file a notice with the district court that they plan to appeal. I believe they have 90 days from the verdict to file the appeal. Otherwise, I believe they have 30 daysto pay.
Yeah, but I keep reminding myself Comcast could have paid $5,000,000 for the patents 7 years ago.
My WAG on the timing would be February 2021. I think COX will go to trial in August and lose. They'll have 90 days to appeal. They will use the entire 90 days and file the appeal last minute in November, around the holiday. And it will be denied December or January -- depending on Appeals court calendar over the holidays. Thereafter, they will have 30 days to pay.
The timing for the remaining 12 remains to be seen. Will they fall in line? Or will they drag it out through June/July of next year?
Why would they be on the hook to the company who sold them the stolen tech?
I think this is why they will go to trial. At least Cox anyhow. To see what a jury would come up with. I'm sure there's still a "grand canyon" between the offer and the demand.
Don't be greedy, LT.
If they buy the patents, there will be no further liability.
Cisco should buy the patents, let CommScope go into bankruptcy, then pick them up at a bargain basement price.
If Arris has already disclosed the potential liablity, is CommScope required to disclose? I believe Comm made vague reference to the lawsuit (without mentioning Chanbond) in the first quarterly report after the merger. Are they required to disclose again?
If the patents aren't sold with the settlement, I think IP/WE will issue a private offering to institutional investors and buy the patents (remaining shareholders - they're not bringing a thousand shareholders over to IP/WE) and go after the remaining infringers.
I'm with you on that, so not sure how a bet would work. I think they will go to trial. I don't think they will settle on a number with a bellweather trial. I think they will appeal, and the appeal will be denied.
The purchase of a few patents will be shown as an expense on their balance sheet,rather than a loss, much more palatable to shareholders than paying out indemnification for lawsuit settlements/judgment awards plus future royalties.
Cisco could avoid the material adverse effect by purchasing the patents.
The real fund starts after Cox loses at trial and their appeal is denied.
Cox's new attorney may have been the primary drafter of "dozens of appellate briefs," but only 15% of cases are heard by the Federal Appeals Court. Fifteen percent of twelve is 1.8. And of the 15% that are actually heard, only 1.7% are reversed; 1.7% of 1.8 is .03. So he would have had to have "drafted" at least 48 appellate briefs to have one case actually heard, and his chances of winning that one case, after 48 briefs, were less than 1% (.8%). I'm not impressed. I hope Carter is not impressed either. But... counsel for the 13 having been saying all along they will go to trial and appeal, so let them just get on with it.
By the way, what happened the hotshot attorney the 13 brought in from Pennsylvania a year and a half/two years ago? Or the hot shot negotiator they brought in from California last year?
What did I tell you. The 13 have no intention of settling. They are going to trial, and they will appeal. Of course, bringing in an attorney who specializes in appeals before you've even lost the case doesn't exactly exude confidence.
I think Teece's estimates were at the very low end, .28 per box per month. It's essentially up to Carter to accept an offer at .28 per box per month. So, no, Cox can't necessarily settle for $84 million right now.
I think his intention is probably to try and encourage a settlement. But I'm sure the jury will pick up on his demeanor at trial as well.
I think we also need to take Carter into consideration. From what I've read, he's not a pushover. Settlement negotiations will not be between Judge Andrews and Tom.
Yes. The 13, Cisco, Arris and RPX have all tried to invalidate the patents, at the PTB, Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, and failed. The argument now is the value. That's what they have been hung up on.
I said previously I'm not worried about the trial or appeal. I know Chanbond will win. Just prepared to wait a bit longer because I don't think they're going to settle.
That's why the 13 brought in the hotshot. Which makes me think they have no intention of settling.
I thought he was brought in because he connects with the jury. The only issues that would be appeallable are judicial errors or excessive damage awards. I think Andrews has enough experience and has been above reproach. I'm not concerned about a trial or appeal. Just prepared for the delay.
Trust me, I wish they had settled this a long time ago, but this is such a huge case with too many egos involved. And the 13 didn't add a hotshot attorney in the 11th hour so they can settle.
An attorney once told me for lawyers it's not about right and wrong, it's all about winning; it's a game to be won.
I hope I'm wrong about Cox taking it to trial. But there are two parties attending the hearing June 2 and trial in August. A settlement requires both parties feel like winners.
It's not so much an analogy. A damage award at trial would still be a very small percentage of Cox's revenue. I would be surprised if they settle.
Doubtful. During the downturn in 2008 all of our supermarkets went on strike because the staff were asked to pay a portion of their healthcare benefits. The owner of one large independently owned chain flat out refused to negotiate, because he "had enough money he could afford to ride it out and pass the costs onto consumers." And that's exactly what he did.
Cox is not looking at treble damages. Why pay now if they can put it off for another 8 or 9 months?