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.
In my opinion the price is down because the retail interest from new investors is essentially zero. They are the ones that chase stocks and push prices up. In this information vacuum we have now there is simply no retail interest to speak of. Institutional investors put their bids in below market and wait to be filled mm's see this and bring it down.
Important POst from Investor Village
http://www.investorvillage.com//smbd.asp?mb=17604&mn=1391&pt=msg&mid=12368627
From "Solo" on investorvillage
This will be my final post on this board. I have attempted to give you commentary and analysis that would be of interest and helpful to those attempting to follow the Vringo case. My insights are based on 40 years of practice as a litigator and appellate advocate. As I have indicated in the past, I believe that it is dangerous for lawyers to give opinions on these boards. I believe it is wrong. For, short of actually being present in the court room to hear all the evidence and without doing the hours and hours of research necessary to sort through the complex legal issues, legal opinions are necessarily going to be flawed. You can see from the Plaintiff's Reply statement how much work goes into the preparation of a pleading and by the extent of the cases cited, how a legal argument is framed and supported by case law. It is comical to think that individuals without legal training can be taken seriously when they offer their opinions. So long as we are doing it to entertain and not inform it is the proper exercise of our First Amendment right. Freely expressed opinions can be energetic and lively. They are the music of the board. All that having been said, I shall now violate everything that I have said heretofore.
Why didn't the Vringo attorneys apply to alter the jury verdict? I bet you didn't realize that they have not done so. Rule 59(e) states that a party has 28 days from the date of the entry of the judgment to apply to alter or amend it. The Clerk Entry Judgment was filed on November 7, 2012. The time elapsed on Thursday December 6, 2012.
There seems to be a lot of noise on the board about Footnote 5 in the Reply regarding a "simple decimal point transposition'. But surely, a footnote in a Reply statement does not constitute a formal request to alter or amend the jury verdict or judgment that reflects the jury verdict. So, what is going on here? This seems to be a bizarre way of dealing with the issue. I am certain that it will provide an opportunity for the Court to comment. Even though Google raised the issue of damage calculation in its response, it did so for the limited issue of the supplemental damages. Of course, there is an answer as to why the Plaintiff's attorneys proceeded this way. It is a calculated strategy on their part. I shall leave it to you to try to figure out what their strategy is. I will ask you to look at Rule 60 below
:
Rule 60. Relief from a Judgment or Order
Rule 60(a) Corrections Based on Clerical Mistakes; Oversights and Omissions. The court may correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record. The court may do so on motion or on its own, with or without notice. But after an appeal has been docketed in the appellate court and while it is pending, such a mistake may be corrected only with the appellate court's leave.
Does that help?
Look at my post entitled Market Uncertainty. I tried to explain why the Vringo attorneys had to be careful not to argue that the jury 'miscalculated' the damages. Those words spell death to the Plaintiff. I explained why. Now look at Footnote 5 on page 15 of the Reply. Do you see how the Plaintiff's attorneys avoided the word 'miscalculation'. They cleverly used the phrase "simple decimal point transposition." Do you now understand better why they used this phrase instead?
Have you ever asked yourself why this is so complicated? If you think that the jury made a mistake, then why don't you simply get the affidavit evidence of the jury foreman or any other jury member? It sure beats all of this legal argument stuff. Can you do this?
Look at Rule 606. That's right 606. I posted a message entitled 606. Did you ever figure out what that meant?
Rule 606(b) During an Inquiry into the Validity of a Verdict or Indictment.
(1) Prohibited Testimony or Other Evidence. During an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not testify about any statement made or incident that occurred during the jury’s deliberations; the effect of anything on that juror’s or another juror’s vote; or any juror’s mental processes concerning the verdict or indictment. The court may not receive a juror’s affidavit or evidence of a juror’s statement on these matters.
(2) Exceptions. A juror may testify about whether:
(A) extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury’s attention;
(B) an outside influence was improperly brought to bear on any juror; or
(C) a mistake was made in entering the verdict on the verdict form.
Why didn't the Plaintiff's attorney obtain the affidavit of a juror to testify to the error?
Of course there is a proper procedure for doing so but that should not have stopped them.
I can go on and on, but you get the idea. All we can do is wait and see what happens. It is foolhardy to try to guess or think we know.
For reasons I will not state here I am confident that everything will work out fine for Vringo.
Simply put, I believe that the Judge is required to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. It is a matter of law. That's right . It would be a manifest injustice if the Judge was alerted to a "simple decimal point transposition" and did not inquire into it. A matter of manifest injustice is a matter of law. Perhaps, that is a reason why the Plaintiff's attorneys did not bring a motion to amend. Do you think?
As if that is not enough most of what is stated above may be subject to the practices of the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
And , finally, can someone tell the Vringo attorneys to stop blaming the Judge for everything that goes wrong. (See Footnote 5). That is soooo not right. They will pay for that...again!. (See Footnote 5). I guess they can't help themselves.
I have left the best for last. - The Patent Act .
Lots of Luck to everyone.
Read more: http://vringo.freeforums.net/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=877#ixzz2EfNDiBN3
shake out the weak hands that have their rent money on this Stock,
Very clever to cite this case .. because it is the case Judge Jackson presided over.... they are using his own words as a defence..
“Courts routinely determine that a party isentitled to post-judgment interest in civil matters where an appeal or post-trial motions arepending.”
ActiveVideo
, 2011 WL 4899922, at *7;
Great Read on S/A This articles puts everything into perspective perfectly in my opinion
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1051741-as-a-frustrated-owner-of-vringo-stock-what-should-i-do?source=email_rt_article_readmore&ifp=0
I agree lets see what JJ has to say...
Investors are funny~~~they won't buy now~~~but when they see this start to go up fast all of a sudden no price will be too much all the way up to a ridiculous peak that can not hold.
Google is trying to keep information private that they deem is important to do so... VRNG has posted opposition to their motion. Google claims harm to competitive advantage. VRNG said they had a chance at trial to do this and did not. If this information is truly a "competitive advantage" then this might force Google into a settlement to prevent their competitors from seeing it . Just speculating as my friend Arlen said earlier
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT GOOGLE INC.’S MOTION TO
SEAL AND REDACT PORTIONS OF TRIAL RECORD
C. Google Waived Its Right to Remove Information from the Transcript that is Now
Public by Failing to Object On the Record When the Information was Presented
in Open Court.
After ruling on Google’s prior motion, this Court repeatedly gave both parties the
opportunity to ensure that proprietary information meeting the Court’s standard for
confidentiality was kept from the public. (See, e.g., Dkt. 729 at 367:10-368:5). Despite these
opportunities and this Court’s ruling on this issue in general, Google now claims that certain
4
information should be redacted to prevent additional harm to Google’s competitive standing.
(Dkt. 803 at 2). Yet, Google failed to object on the record at the time the allegedly harmful
information they now seek to redact was discussed in open court.1 This Court has recognized
that “t is a well-established principle of American jurisprudence that the release of information
in open trial is a publication of that information and, if no effort is made to limit its disclosure,
operates as a waiver of any rights a party had to restrict its further use.” Level 3 Communs., LLC
v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 611 F. Supp. 2d 572, 583 (E.D. Va. 2009) (quoting Glaxo Inc. v.
Novopharm Ltd., 931 F. Supp. 1280,1301 (E.D.N.C. 1996), aff'd, 110 F.3d 1562,1572 (Fed. Cir.
1997)). As Google made no objection during trial at the time the specific information they now
seek to redact was made public, they have waived the right to restrict its further public use now,
after the fact.
Read more: http://vringo.freeforums.net/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=843#ixzz2EIYbET00
no point looking at the price reaction right now. This is being manipulated. Just watch the trading and you will understand. Once there is tangible news the volume will pour in and the game is over. Remember a few weeks ago it trade 1 million shares every 5 minutes for a while....
Pacer Update
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT GOOGLE INC.’S MOTION TO
SEAL AND REDACT PORTIONS OF TRIAL RECORD
By its motion, Google seeks to redact portions of the trial transcript that reflect evidence
presented in open court. The evidence that Google now seeks to redact has already been made
part of the public record. As this Court repeatedly has observed, there is a strong public interest
in this case, and the public has an ongoing right to access judicial proceedings, including the
transcript. I/P Engine’s principals and various members of the public, including journalists,
Vringo shareholders and even a law professor, attended the public portions of the trial and should
not now be required to unremember the information that Google seeks to conceal from the
public. Google’s attempt to remove information, post hoc, from the public record is without
justification, and is unworkable. This motion should be denied, so that the entire trial transcript
not under seal remains open to the public.
Argument
There is a presumption that the public has a right to access information contained in
judicial documents. See Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980) (plurality
opinion); Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978); In re Washington
Post Co., 807 F.2d 383, 390 (4th Cir. 1986). The public’s right to access judicial proceedings is
2
guaranteed not only by common law, but also by the First Amendment. See Rushford v. New
Yorker Magazine, Inc., 846 F.2d 249, 253 (4th Cir. 1988) (“We believe the more rigorous First
Amendment standard should also apply to . . . civil case[s]”). Denying the public’s right to this
access must therefore advance a compelling government interest and be narrowly tailored to
serve that interest. Id. Sealing or redacting a trial transcript is a form of denying the public
access to a judicial proceeding or judicial records requiring the same rigorous First Amendment
standard of justification. See United States v. Cousins, 858 F. Supp. 2d 614, 617 FN. 4 (E.D. Va.
2012) (“[T]rial transcripts presumably would be entitled to protection under the First
Amendment as well.”).
A. All Requested Redactions Fall into Categories of Information Previously
Submitted to this Court for Review.
In Google’s previous Motion to Seal Documents and Close the Courtroom During
Presentation of Confidential Material at Trial, Google asked this Court to consider the
confidentiality of evidence falling into the following three categories: (1) how AdWords and
AdSense for Search determine which advertisements to display to users, (2) Google’s patent
license agreements and other intellectual property agreements, and (3) Defendants’ financial
information. (Dkt. 347 at 1). At trial, the Court ruled that evidence of the operation of the
source code could be submitted under seal, but that other technical information, license
agreement details and financial information would not be sealed.
By Google’s own admission, its present motion seeks to redact portions of the transcript
relating to the non-source code operation of the AdWords system, and its revenues – the same
categories of information that this Court already decided to keep public during trial. (Dkt. 803 at
1). For example, the requested redactions of portions of Bartholomew Furrow’s public
testimony refer to the functionality of Google’s accused systems. (Dkt. 803 at 4). The second
3
set of requested redactions relate to the amounts paid for intellectual property rights under
licensing agreements with third parties. (Dkt. 803 at 4-5). The third set of redaction requests are
specific revenues for the accused systems. (Dkt. 803 at 5). All three of these categories were
previously considered and rejected by this Court.
B. This Court Previously Refused to Keep this Information from the Public and
Allowed it to Be Discussed in Open Court.
After reviewing the arguments in Defendants’ prior motion regarding the confidentiality
of these categories of information, this Court stated during trial that only “information that
clearly necessitates the public being excluded from the courtroom” would be kept from the
public. (Dkt. 729 at 367:17-19). The Court maintained throughout the trial that the only
evidence that met this standard was specific, highly confidential aspects of Google’s source
code. (Dkt. 729 at 367:10-368:5). Regarding Google’s requested redactions, the portions of
Bartholomew Furrow’s testimony refer to Google’s accused systems (Dkt. 803 at 4), but they do
not discuss the details of specific, highly confidential aspects of Google’s source code that were
discussed in a closed courtroom. And, Google concedes that this Court specifically decided
during trial that the information specifying the amounts paid for intellectual property rights under
licensing agreements with third parties and specific revenues for the accused systems should not
be sealed from the public. (Dkt. 803 at 4-5).
C. Google Waived Its Right to Remove Information from the Transcript that is Now
Public by Failing to Object On the Record When the Information was Presented
in Open Court.
After ruling on Google’s prior motion, this Court repeatedly gave both parties the
opportunity to ensure that proprietary information meeting the Court’s standard for
confidentiality was kept from the public. (See, e.g., Dkt. 729 at 367:10-368:5). Despite these
opportunities and this Court’s ruling on this issue in general, Google now claims that certain
4
information should be redacted to prevent additional harm to Google’s competitive standing.
(Dkt. 803 at 2). Yet, Google failed to object on the record at the time the allegedly harmful
information they now seek to redact was discussed in open court.1 This Court has recognized
that “t is a well-established principle of American jurisprudence that the release of information
in open trial is a publication of that information and, if no effort is made to limit its disclosure,
operates as a waiver of any rights a party had to restrict its further use.” Level 3 Communs., LLC
v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 611 F. Supp. 2d 572, 583 (E.D. Va. 2009) (quoting Glaxo Inc. v.
Novopharm Ltd., 931 F. Supp. 1280,1301 (E.D.N.C. 1996), aff'd, 110 F.3d 1562,1572 (Fed. Cir.
1997)). As Google made no objection during trial at the time the specific information they now
seek to redact was made public, they have waived the right to restrict its further public use now,
after the fact.
D. Google Fails to Give Any New or Valid Justification for Redacting Information
that Was Discussed in Open Court and is Now Part of Public Record.
Further, despite recognizing that this Court already reviewed and declined to keep this
information from the public in general, Google provides no new justification for why these
specific portions of the transcript should now be redacted. To the contrary, Google offers
virtually the same arguments, sometimes word for word, as were provided in its earlier motion to
1 Google claims to have reserved their rights by requesting that the Court take all steps necessary
to protect confidential information and objecting in general to disclosure of confidential
information during conferences with the Court. (Dkt. 803 at 1). However, these general
objections were off the record and in reference to the Court’s ruling on the prior motion to close
the courtroom. They were not specifically in reference to the portions of the trial transcript
shared in open court that Google now seeks to redact. Google has pointed to no specific
objections made on the record when the allegedly harmful information was actually disclosed to
the public.
5
close the courtroom.2 (Dkt. 803; Dkt. 347). It claims that the information is confidential and
will harm its competitive standing. Id. This Court has already considered and rejected these
arguments. The testimony referring to the way in which Google’s accused systems function do
not refer to the specific, highly confidential aspects of Google’s source code that this Court
determined must be kept from the public. And, as the Court already indicated, the license
information and financial data are common parts of all patent infringement trials and do not need
to be removed from the public forum.
Google’s motion is merely an attempt to have this Court reverse its prior decision without
providing any new or valid justification. This Court did not find Google’s arguments convincing
enough to keep this information from the public in the first place. There is no new justification
to remove information from public access that has already been discussed freely in open court.3
2 While Google emphasizes that it has narrowly designated portions of the record, it never argues
that the narrow designations were not part of its original requests to keep the information from
the public.
3 While Google cites Woven Elecs. Corp v. Advance Group, Inc., to support the legitimacy of
redacting a trial transcript to remove information from the public forum after it was presented in
open court (Dkt. 803 at 3), the case does not factually apply to this situation. In Woven Elecs.,
the jury verdict distinctly established that trade secrets had been mistakenly discussed in open
court and redaction of the trial transcript was seen as the best method of repairing that damage.
1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 6004, *17-19 (4th Cir. Apr. 15, 1991). This is not the situation in this
case. There is no argument, and no finding, that confidential material was mistakenly presented
in open court.
6
In particular, Google has provided no arguments that suggest that redacting this particular
information from the trial transcript after it has been discussed in open court advances a
compelling government interest and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. Absent such a
showing, the presumption that the public should have access to the contents of the trial transcript
remains in place and the information should not be removed from the public record. See
Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. 555.
Dated: December 5, 2012 By: /s/ Jeffrey K. Sherwood
Donald C. Schultz (Virginia Bar No. 30531)
W. Ryan Snow (Virginia Bar No. 47423)
CRENSHAW, WARE & MARTIN PLC
150 West Main Street
Norfolk, VA 23510
Telephone: (757) 623-3000
Facsimile: (757) 623-5735
Read more: http://vringo.freeforums.net/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=843#ixzz2EIKhzUZg
It seems likely that should Judge Jackson decide to amend the past damages he will also award supplemental damages as one without the other would seem inconsistent. Should the Judge rule in this manner the supplemental award would be roughly $13M.
If I knew that I would time my entry perfectly. I would rather be in than not, we could see some movement over the next few weeks, once the train leaves the station its not coming back...look at VHC as an example
Ok Arlen I am 51 and have been trading more than 25 years. It is pure speculation on your part that they are paying their lawyers in shares and they are dumping. However I do agree with you when the smoke clears their are multiple catalysts here and the large growing short position will catapult this far higher than most expect...
I agree with you in watching the trading today and previously the mm's are holding this in place allowing for accumulation
Vringo is paying for services with shares and they are being dumped on the market~~
I think people realize but are not trading off of it at least retail isn't. It is all good and the chances for a settlement with ZTE is quite high. Vringo hit them on multiple fronts and jurisdictions. We need to see how they monetize these and then the crowd will rush in IMHO...
Considering Ravicher is short is this a surprise....
not really relevant on the price i saw the close at 3.2999 then immediately two trades were posted 9500 shares @ 3.37 above the bid/ask and then immediately after that 300 shares @ 3.27 below the bid/ask... does it real;y matter these after hour mm moves? Last Friday remember they put through a 155,000 share trade @ $3.55 , funds rebalancing did it affect the price Monday no it did not...the only time the after hours really matter is when there is news release after the close otherwise no point...
New Pacer Filings just highlighst can't access details yet...
http://charts.stocktwits.com/production/original_10831451.png?1354654139
true but there is also no reason for this news to be a catalyst to sell either....which on the surface is what we have
Frustrated retail investors
this is exactly why most retail investors never make the big money on stocks that explode in price... institutions have increased their positions continue to add daily retail gets frustrated and bails... how many people held vhc only to dump it when they saw nothing happen after their win?
Exactly another in a long line of non events that people assume are death blows. Not surprising with the way things have worked out. Short positions increasing 1 million every 15 days, naked shorting going on., longs fearful no resolution in court, fear doubt anxiety, not the recipe for a strong move up. We need real tangible news especially from the court but even something on ZTE will help. I understand they are talking to institutional investors but they should be doing a better job of telling the story to the public IMHO..
Yes it will be 2 to three years before they get to this. However the shorts used this to attack and weak longs already nervous well you know the pattern...
Excellent post . I wanted to add more point to add fuel to the short dilemma. The avg daily volume is going down while the short position has been rising . THis causes a problem when they try and cover. The scenario I envision is trading halt..rise to x level and then all the shorts will go to the exits .....the spike here could be enormous before it settles down...
A Goog work-around may be feasible but the impact it would have makes it totally impractical and completely out of the question.
not an error that broker has had that trade showing last week..probably a gtc order and there no other brokers a/h with lower trades at least at the time it was posted..
Are you serious with this comment? I mean they don't have to put though a half million dollar trade to do that....
116,200 share trade @ 3.55 ......
Here is the filing if you want to review it...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/114979631/Https-Ecf-vaed-Uscourts-gov-Cgi-bin-Show-Temp-pl-File-4301048-0-9531
According to Barron's the float is about 65 million with 21% or 13 million shorted... I .posted yesterday..
New Post from Edvacourt through his instablog
VRNG: A Major Victory Has Been Won (REALLY)
28
NOV
Like many people who have observed this case I have been left wondering how the law, as applied, can be so nebulous. We are three weeks removed from a jury verdict in which the Plaintiff in this case, Vringo, won convincingly. Like most such cases there have been many twists and turns along the way: The Markman Hearing and Ruling, Summary Judgment, Laches, The Verdict and more. All that is pretty understandable since a trial, much like a football game, comes with a combination of scores, penalties and turnovers. The big gripe in this case is that unlike a football game, even after the verdict and judgment few people seem to know the score.
Fast forward to today, Wednesday, November 28, 2012. Here is where we are (I am basing this in part on several discussions with patent attorneys (which I am not) who themselves have viewed the judgment. This is what I got out of those conversations. Note: I make no representation for anyone to trade on this information I simply share it and expect that people will do their own due diligence and proceed with whatever decisions they think best for them.
On November 20th Judge Jackson issued what was in fact his final ruling. Notice that the ruling said “Judgment in a Civil Case.” Those who have speculated that only one box was checked on this form need to understand that this box was checked because it was a jury trial. The other box was not appropriate to check because the action did not come for “determination before the court” it came for “a trial by jury.”docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/virginia/vaedce/2:2011cv00512/271949/801/0.pdf
The future royalty rate is 3.5%. I have been assured that this is in fact the case. This is the rate the Judge has ordered going forward and more than that he telegraphed in court (right in front of me) that this was the rate he was likely to use. The attorney I spoke with said the Judge, by entering his judgment, has started the clock running on post trial motions, clarifications and the like. At this point we can expect to see a flurry of post judgment motions filed in the very near future if there is no settlement. It is interesting that Vringo did not wait for the Judge’s final ruling to file their motion for interest and supplemental damages-it could be that they thought that the judge might be prompted by this motion to clarify the apparent past damages calculation error when he issued his judgment. He did not take the opportunity to do so but he may entertain a corrective motion in the near future. In plain English he may not have wanted to make a correction without specifically being asked to do so.
What Vringo is likely to do now. Vringo is likely to ask the Judge to clarify his ruling with respect to damages in the absence of a very near-term settlement. He has already been asked for clarification on the one month of supplemental damages. I think we are also going to see a request for clarification of the royalty base. While the parties know what royalty base was introduced at trial (Dr. Becker testified to a royalty base of 20% and Google offered no alternative royalty base), and I have been told in no uncertain terms that this is the base that will be used and would be used even in the event of an appeal, it would make sense for the judge to clarify this fact. Vringo can also request to have the past damages corrected. Again, my guess is that if we don’t see a settlement between the sides shortly that request will be forthcoming. Judge Jackson will be asked to effectively move the decimal point. Keep in mind too that based on the Court’s judgment of November 20, Vringo could legitimately sue all of Google’s Search customers right now.
To summarize these conversations:
Vringo has received a running royalty award of 3.5%. Based upon past revenue figures this should be worth approximately $600+M or $150+M X 4 going forward. Since we do not know the actual future revenue numbers this is a conservative guesstimate based on historical revenues. The reality is that the numbers should be well north of this.
Vringo has been awarded $30M in past damages
I believe that the Judge is likely to award Vringo roughly $11.5M in supplemental damages (based on application of the 3.5% to Dr. Becker’s royalty base) in addition to past fees and interest. This is based upon the historical number of the 3rd quarter royalty base which was approximately $1b. Multiply that by 3.5% which gives you $35M and divide by three to get an approximate one month number. It is a bit more than that since supplemental goes from October 1-November 6 but nonetheless it’s a lot of greenbacks. I’m pretty certain that Google will argue simplistically that the past damage number for the supplemental month should be $1.32M based upon taking the Jury’s past damage number and dividing by 12. The problem with this arithmetic is that there is no factoring by a proper or accurate royalty base and this flies in the face of everything that was presented during trial. While the judge has not corrected any math yet I don’t think he is ready to participate in offering up his own miscalculations by turning a blind eye to what was presented at trial and winging it on the supplemental award.
Stock Value: So given what we know today what would be a fair valuation for Vringo? If you consider the recent 10Q from November 14th we have approximately 112M fully diluted shares. Whether the market recognizes it or not (Google surely does) we have Awards that total $600 + $30 Million (and this could well be changed but I am not using any increases here). We also have roughly $50M in cash. So $680M plus interest and fees. I speculate that after expenses and taxes Vringo would have about $500M in the bank. Now some have argued that Vringo should receive no multiple because no revenue has been secured post 2016. I don’t think a rational investor looking at the history of similar companies would draw the same conclusion. I have seen a range of multiples on a handful of these companies in the range of 2.1-to more than 20. Like Dr. Becker did with royalties I would hue toward the lower end and use a multiple of 3X. I have seen one compelling report that places the value of the Nokia Patents at about 6X the purchase price. While we may not know what revenue will be derived post 2016 I suspect the market will arrive at a multiple that takes into account numerous factors and perhaps most of all Vringo’s ability to successfully prosecute a case against a company like Google who can afford a battery of attorneys that are the best money can buy. Vringo’s team is what is Golden here folks and that is a big part of why the market will make assumptions on revenue going forward on myriad cases. Jeffrey Sherwood who argued for Vringo in Norfolk was one of the finest litigators I have ever seen in court.www.dicksteinshapiro.com/newsevents/pressreleases/detail.aspx
Therefore, on the basis of what we now know I think we will see a future valuation between $1.5-2 billion for Vringo or a $13-18 share price range.
I speculate that the reason we have not seen more motions filed at this point is that the parties are trying to come to an agreement. Vringo has been unnervingly silent since November 20 and as I have said above has held their fire. While a judgment has indeed been rendered, Judge Jackson still has jurisdiction to respond to these various post trial motions.
One other note…at times it has been difficult to quickly publish information. On one message board in particular during the trial I was not able to publish during a critical time for almost an hour. I will begin to post these and other articles on my patent blog which is located at edvapatent.wordpress.com.
Disclosure: I am long VRNG.
Additional disclosure: I post this information for general informational use and do not advise that you make trading decisions without consulting with an advisor or doing your own due diligence.
Read more: http://vringo.freeforums.net/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=788#ixzz2DXMEG700
Yes I agree but this is one of 2 things people selling before tax season or short positions trying to get out. I think it's those short positions..this is ridiculous.
VRNG Valuation from another board
VRNG updated VALUATION
« Thread Started Today at 7:55am »
$5.75 net cash, Short term target $10-12
1) Post-verdict legal motions up to 07 December and after that we will get Final judgement.
Regarding GOOG past damages, we are facing an indisputable clerical math error imo which will be fixed very likely. All defendants must have the correct proportion for their damages.
Total Past damages will be 173M + interests = about 185M
Future Royalties might be higher than 3.5% or JJ could up the 20.9% AdWords portion.
Using only 3.5% of 20.9% and a very conservative 11% y/y AdWords growth we have 650M of future damages.
Skyrocketing Google mobile ads (2016 estimate is almost 4 times 2012) will probably fuel overall ads growth to 20% Y/Y and we have 770M of future damages.
With a range of 650M-770M, an excellent conservative estimate is 700M.
Recap
Total award already won 730M (30+700)
Very Likely Math Error Fix = Total award about 900M
3.5% or 20.9% upped = Total award 1-2B (to be calculated)
Laches appeal worth 350M extra potential => GOOG should think twice about an appeal
Don't forget the image damage for several years for such a big company infringing in its core business and the fact that they paid 500M just to settle the canadian pharmacy ads issue.
If I were Google, I'd buy the patents or VRNG for 1-1.4B as soon as possible ($9.5-12.5 a share).
As soon as possible means before MSFT YHOO or any other.
2) No workarounds. There are plenty of workarounds but they just don't work.
If they had a better code they would have used it by now,
no reason for GOOG to wait for this trial or verdict.
3) Fully diluted shares only if warrants are exercised.
If warrants are exercised = 55M extra cash for VRNG, which puts cash at 115M already (60M+55M)
If you use a net 52% (after legal and taxes) of 900M + this 115M cash + NOLs Net operating losses in previous years which should help another 20M, you have net cash of $5.75 a share fully diluted
$5.75 net cash value
not even considering JJ upping 3.5% or 20.9% nor any following point of this valuation and using conservative numbers for Google ads growth
4) Search patents vs other GOOG adwords network partners (at least $0.40 a share net value)
5) Search patents vs MSFT YHOO (at least $1 a share net value)
6) Telecom patents vs ZTE Huawei Motorola Cisco Juniper Siemens etc. (at least $1 a share net value)
7) New Lang patents clearly very interesting (for example Wireless Energy) (unknown value)
8) VRNG clear skill to use cash very well. Every $ in the bank is worth much more in their hands.
I think that an hostile takeover is likely by any big player AAPL MSFT YHOO GOOG or even others.
Even without a sudden buyout or a big settlement,
My valuation is $10-12 short term and $16-20 longer term.
This stock is a top pick.
Read more: http://vringo.freeforums.net/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=786#ixzz2DWxTCYAP
Short Position
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/vrng/short-interest
I posted yesterday that there are now over 13.2 million shares short almost 21% of the float according to Barrons. With the activity the last few days I am sure this number is even higher.
Can this continue unabated? It will work until it doesn't. The lack of news and clarity will keep longs away and continue to embolden the short crowd. We need good news on any front here until then this will continue unfortunately.
Short Interest UP 9.35% to 13.28 million 20.9% of float
I submit that "news" at this point has nothing to do with the stock price dropping. It's being manipulated by those who want to accumulate some cheap shares.
If you don't know if its true and you don't have a link why would you even post this? Asking a question about what might happen if you don't know its true makes no sense to me?
USPTO is a red herring by shorts.. discussed here...
http://vringo.freeforums.net/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=746
MM's keeping this down....
There is no doubt of this...when you see trades like 3.6499, 3.6496 etc these are trades by buyers for 3.65 but mm's fill their inventory because they have more than they want, or they are keeping it down for accumulation or they are short. The more trades like this the more it stagnates. Then buyers get frustrated. The opposite is true when mm's want it to rise they fill trades above the bid , buyers then raise their bids and it keeps going. Their true intentions are uncertain but this is what is going on. It does not necessarily have anything to do with fundamentals etc. The lack of news and clarity makes this ripe for them. Finally the short position was 12 million plus as of Oct 31 and tonight we get the Nov 15th numbers it will be interesting to see if the number is even higher. I suspect it is.
the shorts have the power to continually conduct bear raids and steal near-term