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.
Thoughts on bear raid
The raid was actually very bullish,
If the shorts were more confident in their position at this point why raid, they would take the PPS higher to suck more people in and short more. They want out based on the obvious jury questions about damages and they hit alot of stops this morning.
Hate to say it but nothing illegal about it. Put in a sell order at the market for 100,000 shares and the panic begins. Thats why no one should have used stop losses but the board was litered with them this morning. People wanting to lock in gains from yestardays move.
Either way, the case goes on and the jury is still in session and Ed is probably right, we will end this today, I think VRNG will win, now the question is how much and what will the PPS do based on the damages and the future value of the win. gl
that's right....full order flow not showing but they know there is an imbalance on the buy side....
why would he ...does have his ticket....
Reasons to hold Vringo...
There are so many reasons to stay long.
1. ZTE will net $180-250m
2. NOK patents will net $20-40m up front with on going payments per year of $10-20m
3. Additional dealings with VZ, ATT and others
4. Potential buying new patents... we are a business.
There have been many analysis done on what we are worth. Most underestimate the real value in my opinion.
Read more: http://vringo.freeforums.net/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=150#ixzz2BRqfXdYW
Probably you meant Isaiah 40:31
but those who hope in the LORD will renew their strength. They will soar on wings like eagles; they will run and not grow weary, they will walk and not be faint.
One of my favorite scriptures...
God bless
People might take trading profits...but it is important to remember with a win their business model is energized. They will acquire and litigate their patents....plus let's see what Lang does with Vringo's ringtone business.... nothing but blue sky from here IMHO....
Post Unavailable
Additional Information
No doubt the longer the deliberation the better for VRNG...if they were going to find for Google it would have been over by now....In my opinion trying to figure out a suitable compensation figure takes time...
Needs to crack through 2.70...then we are off..
Modernist now says VRNG a BUY....
http://seekingalpha.com/article/973601-why-vringo-is-a-buy?source=email_rt_article_title&ifp=0
Stock price is being pinned down by mm's and shorts because when they cover they don't want to do it $3 +..It's not hard to do. Most people who want in are positioned already. Shorts play the buying /selling game keeps stock down. On a VRNGO win you won't keep up with the short covering rally IMHO....
Slides used in presentation to jurors yesterday....gives you an idea what they are reflecting upon....
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByyR-FelC5OTYnBxSDNHNG0zazQ/edit?pli=1
Very good read, important to understand facts not bs IMHO...
Important doucument filed...V's Proffer of Evidence Related to Laches. Filed with court this morning. Important read...
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByyR-FelC5OTeGxvUHUwc3RuUFU/view?pli=1&sle=true
ASK Showing $3.80 broker NSDQ 500 shares.....FYI
New S/Article....Vringo: Parabolic Rise Imminent?
When examining Vringo's (VRNG) technicals, it looks to be in a bullish state, as can be seen here. Technical analysis aside, the PPS (price per share) of Vringo will be greatly influenced next week by the outcome of its lawsuit against Google (GOOG), IAC Search & Media (IACI), Gannett Company (GCI), Target Corporation (TGT) and AOL (AOL). Developments coming out of court so far suggest Vringo has done an excellent job presenting its case to the court. It seems that Google's lawyers underestimated the risk of going to court and are overpowered by their Vringo counterparts. Dave Manuel defines a parabolic move as, "When a stock starts going up, the buying interest increases dramatically, sending the stock into orbit." Basically, the interest in the stock keeps compounding and growing, triggering a chain reaction. Are we about to witness parabolic movement with the Vringo stock next week?
To summarize the case for people just joining, it is a classic story of David and Goliath, played with Vringo portraying the role of David and seeing Google as infringing on its patents (which are used by Google in adwords to do content filtering). Why is this important? Well, adwords derive most of the revenue at Google and based on this revenue they are able to provide their other services like Gmail, Google Plus, Android and many others. Vringo, for some reason, appears to have targeted only adwords on the search engine and left out Gmail, which also displays ads based on content filtering based on Vringo's patent. Revenue estimates derived from Gmail can be seen here, though they are small compared to adwords. Why is this important? With a win against Google, there is chatter among traders in the market that Vringo might target Microsoft (MSFT) and Yahoo (YHOO) next, which also allegedly utilize content filtering. It must be noted before Google supposedly utilized Vringo's IP to do content filtering (the "Smartad system"), they had a system named internally as the "Dumbad system." Previous dumb systems infringed on Overture's patent and Google settled by paying $226 million in shares to Yahoo. Upon cross examination of Dr. Becker during the trial, this was revealed to the jury. By switching to the smartad system based on Vringo's patent, Google's revenue went up by 20%, which suggests that the damages Vringo is seeking are very reasonable.
Outside of the Google Case
The Google lawsuit isn't the only opportunity for Vringo to capitalize on their patent portfolio. Vringo purchased mobile patents from Nokia (NOK) with the agreement that when revenues go over a certain number, they will be sharing them with Nokia. With these new patents acquired, Vringo has filed a lawsuit in the UK against ZTE. This case starts in February 2013. On Oct 23rd, Vringo's patent for "contact matching of changing content across platforms" was approved by the USPTO. With this patent in Vringo's arsenal, traders have speculated it is possible that the likes of Facebook (FB) and others will be targeted. It remains to be seen what strategy will be employed by Vringo with this patent and its massive potential.
I disagree with your assessment. Here's why
If VRNG wins, they'll get damages, interest and royalties. At this late point, a settlement or buyout will probably be close to the same price as a trial win (my opinion). That amount plus the assets they already have (cash, patents and Facetones) divided by the number of shares will equal the share price. This will be the share price and not added on to the current share price (yes, there is about $300 million already "baked in").
This is not reasonable or probable. Where do you get about $300 million baked in? Second this is not a simple mathematical equation. There is the matter of the large short position which has started to realize this isn't a one way trade recently. This alone will move the price higher than your expectations. Third there is the ZTE patents which you ascribe zero value. Then there is the fact that with a win you will have a company with a large war chest, capable of buying more patents and attacking from strength. This fact will attract institutional investors and will put a premium into the share price.
So I respectfully disagree with your analysis. The swings will be wild but the price will not be simply award divided by shares o/s of this I have no doubt.
Here is his response...
Re: Re: Re: Trial Update 2:35PM: Ungar Cross continues...more bad news for defense
By edvacourt . 8 minutes ago . Permalink Go to topic
I am not the one in the courtroom. I will be there next week. Today, I am the one relaying the proceedings. As for not writing earlier in the trial I'm not sure there was a point. The Google testimony is what this was always coming down to. How strong was it? Not that strong from what we're seeing today. Yesterday, Ungar appeared competent but that is always easier when not being challenged. Will post later but likely after market close at this point.
UPdate fromEDvacourt....
Trial Update 2:35PM: Ungar Cross continues...more bad news for defense
By edvacourt . 2 minutes 40 seconds ago . Permalink
After morning break Dr. Ungar being questioned by Cimino about differences between the 664 and the 420 patent. Specifically when Ungar testified yesterday he looked at one element in the 664 patent that the USPTO referenced in the comments section where they distinguished in a particular prior art that you could use a wire and Ungar said that the only difference is that this is a wire and Plaintiff never claimed Google uses a wire. What Cimino establishes is that there is no requirement that one use a wire in order to infringe the 664 patent. This is another bad Ungar moment. Also too, the 664 patent doesn't have a requirement for "collaborativeness" and Ungar has assumed that the patents are the same in terms of a collaborative requirement...not so. Cimino further establishes that none of the three prior art references supplied by Ungar yesterday actually require a search engine! The abstracts do not talk about it and none of the patents anticipate the prior art. Ungar was forced to agree with this. During this line of questioning Google's lawyers literally flipped out (as much as can be done in a courtroom) and objected to it and the judge ruled that Cimino could go on with his questioning. I'm not sure this really means anything but Judge Jackson said Google could bring it up on appeal. At this point as with earlier today it is pretty clear this cross exam is going to result in a substantial question in the jury's mind about Dr. Ungar's testimony. At one point Cimino says to Ungar...well you don't have a computer science degree but what about anyone at the PTO? He makes the point that in this arena the PTO is smarter than Ungar. Cimino then went through all of Google's "alternatives to infringement" and was very clear that each alternative was not a work around. He asks Ungar whether he has tested these alternatives to which Ungar was evasive or said no. One of the alternatives, filtering by minimum cost per click, was proven by Cimino to have been abandoned by Google. He asks Ungar incredulously.. so one of the alternatives is to go back to a system used before your revenues started going up by 20%? He then shows that Ungar came up with these alternatives in two, half hour phone calls with a Google Engineer. Ungar is shown to have taken these alternatives down and submitted them verbatim the very next day. He was then asked by Cimino, is that all the thought you gave to it? Ungar responds that it just means that it was the first time he thought of it. Again, it is noted that Ungar is very uncomfortable and the jury is paying rapt attention. Cimino does a yeoman's job of blowing out of the water any idea that the minor changes Google makes are actually work-a-rounds that avoid infringement. Ungar now looks entirely like a guy that took his brief directly from Google rather than being an expert.
Ready to test $3.95 breakout level?
EDVACOURT resppnse on YMB
Re: Re: Re: Trial Update 12:52 PM October 26: Dr. Ungar cross examination very bad for defense
By edvacourt . 17 minutes ago . Permalink Go to topic
I will report again as soon as I get more information at any breaks. There was a 15 minute break after Ungar's cross this morning and it took me a good while to sift through the notes I had and write. I really don't think Google envisioned how bad things could go with Dr. Ungar. They banked (so far rightly) that Judge Jackson would not allow Ungar's earlier misdeeds be made known to the jury and I think they thought if they could dodge that bullet they were in good shape. The cross exam this morning shows that that was a significant miscalculation.
New post on YMB, take it for what it's worth... "Trial Update 12:52 PM October 26: Dr. Ungar cross examination very bad for defense"
$3.95 is breakout level....strong burst through there should push into $4.00 +++
Dr Ungers testimony going very well fro Vringo
Some highlights...
Key highlights:
Dr Unger attempt to uncheck boxed that DreFrieder checked in his testimony as proof of Google's infringement. However Dr Ungar is reading line by line the power point slide during the testimony…
He has not been appearing too confident when he is asked by Google with reference to his testimony and he has frequently saying as "i think so"
He has on occasion reference to "adwords" which Google attorney quickly clarified if he meant "Adsense"
Patterns don't necessarily repeat themselves..expect the unexpected...I am seeing higher pps later this afternoon not lower....10 million plus short any whiff of any positive news and look what happens twice now huge fast move up.....All IMHO...
Breakout coming bollinger bands narrowing positive price action...IMHO
Technical breakout @ $3.70...needs to clear this for next leg up......IMHO
That's a huge number....thanks
Short Interest
We should find out the new short interest numbers today...I expect another increase
October 10/15/2012 10/17/2012 10/24/2012
Sorry ..glitch
New Pacer doc posted on Yahoo...
Here's the actual doc:
Case 2:11-cv-00512-RAJ-TEM Document 740-1 Filed 10/24/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID# 16089
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
NORFOLK DIVISION
__________________________________________
)
I/P ENGINE, INC., )
)
Plaintiff, )
v. ) Civ. Action No. 2:11-cv-512
)
AOL, INC. et al., )
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)
PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSED CURATIVE INSTRUCTIONS
1. Instruction Regarding The Disney-Google Agreement
Members of the jury, yesterday you heard counsel for Defendants ask Dr. Becker a
number of questions during cross-examination regarding a patent license agreement between
Disney and Google. Defendants were trying to establish that the technology of the DisneyGoogle Agreement is comparable to the technology of the patents-in-suit that I/P Engine is
asserting against Google and the other defendants. The Court has ruled that the technology of
the Disney-Google Agreement is not comparable to the technology of the patents-in-suit. As a
result, the Court instructed you to disregard all testimony regarding the Disney-Google
Agreement. You may not consider that agreement, or the amount of that agreement, for any
purpose, including trying to determine what the appropriate royalty should be in this case.
I want to emphasize that my instruction to you on this matter is in no way a reflection that
Dr. Becker did anything improper. During his direct examination, Dr. Becker testified that he
was not relying on the Disney-Google agreement because there is no evidence that the Disney
technology is relevant to any issue in this case the questions of Defense counsel regarding the
Case 2:11-cv-00512-RAJ-TEM Document 740-1 Filed 10/24/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID# 160891
Disney-Google agreement were improper. The Court has therefore ruled that any evidence
regarding the Disney technology is improper and irrelevant.
2. Instruction Regarding Discovery of Google’s Financial Information
You also heard counsel for Defendants ask Dr. Becker questions regarding whether he
had asked counsel for I/P Engine for further documents or information to support his opinions
regarding his apportionment, or whether there was a final version of PX 64, the Revenue Force
document. After reviewing the record on this matter, the Court has found that counsel for I/P
Engine had requested those documents and information from Google, but that Google did not
produce to I/P Engine a final version of the Revenue Force document, PX 64, or any documents
providing the numerical support for the slides on page 38 of that document. I instruct you that
you may conclude, based upon the cross-examination questions asked of Dr. Becker by
Defendants’ counsel, that Google had additional documents and information that, had they been
produced, would have provided further support to Dr. Becker’s opinions regarding his
apportionment.
New Pacer doc posted on Yahoo...
Here's the actual doc:
Case 2:11-cv-00512-RAJ-TEM Document 740-1 Filed 10/24/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID# 16089
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
NORFOLK DIVISION
__________________________________________
)
I/P ENGINE, INC., )
)
Plaintiff, )
v. ) Civ. Action No. 2:11-cv-512
)
AOL, INC. et al., )
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)
PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSED CURATIVE INSTRUCTIONS
1. Instruction Regarding The Disney-Google Agreement
Members of the jury, yesterday you heard counsel for Defendants ask Dr. Becker a
number of questions during cross-examination regarding a patent license agreement between
Disney and Google. Defendants were trying to establish that the technology of the DisneyGoogle Agreement is comparable to the technology of the patents-in-suit that I/P Engine is
asserting against Google and the other defendants. The Court has ruled that the technology of
the Disney-Google Agreement is not comparable to the technology of the patents-in-suit. As a
result, the Court instructed you to disregard all testimony regarding the Disney-Google
Agreement. You may not consider that agreement, or the amount of that agreement, for any
purpose, including trying to determine what the appropriate royalty should be in this case.
I want to emphasize that my instruction to you on this matter is in no way a reflection that
Dr. Becker did anything improper. During his direct examination, Dr. Becker testified that he
was not relying on the Disney-Google agreement because there is no evidence that the Disney
technology is relevant to any issue in this case the questions of Defense counsel regarding the
Case 2:11-cv-00512-RAJ-TEM Document 740-1 Filed 10/24/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID# 160891
Disney-Google agreement were improper. The Court has therefore ruled that any evidence
regarding the Disney technology is improper and irrelevant.
2. Instruction Regarding Discovery of Google’s Financial Information
You also heard counsel for Defendants ask Dr. Becker questions regarding whether he
had asked counsel for I/P Engine for further documents or information to support his opinions
regarding his apportionment, or whether there was a final version of PX 64, the Revenue Force
document. After reviewing the record on this matter, the Court has found that counsel for I/P
Engine had requested those documents and information from Google, but that Google did not
produce to I/P Engine a final version of the Revenue Force document, PX 64, or any documents
providing the numerical support for the slides on page 38 of that document. I instruct you that
you may conclude, based upon the cross-examination questions asked of Dr. Becker by
Defendants’ counsel, that Google had additional documents and information that, had they been
produced, would have provided further support to Dr. Becker’s opinions regarding his
apportionment.
Not my assumptions but I appreciate the input....
One Man's opinion of the potential for VRNG's stock price....
Outstanding shares : ~100 mil
Award: ~500 mil
Current price per share :~ 3.75
To attain what the price per share will be adding in the 500 mil $ award;
500mil / 100mil shares = $5
You then add that number to the current price per share;
5+3.75 = $8.75 a share.
Multipliers are then given to companies who can prove their business models are sustainable and can generate substantial revenue. A multiplier can range from 1,2,3,4,5,etc.
8.75 x 1 = $8.75 pps
8.75 x 2 = $17.50 pps
8.75 x 3 = $26.25 pps
8.75 x 5 = $43.75 pps
8.75 x 10 = $87.50 pps
Keep in mind, I rounded up to 500mil from the 496 mil that Vringo is asking (legal costs will be covered by google, not the award). This number that they are asking does not include future royalty fees, and interest. Vringo is asking for a 3.5% royalty fee. At the beginning of the trial, Vringo was asking for a 696 million dollar award from Google, for just backdated revenues. Google has profited 69 billion. It seems that Vringo was asking for 1%. It was then announced that Vringo was only asking 496 mil. Google's ad revenues immediately increased by about 20% by infringing on Lang's patent. So they are asking for 3.5% of the 20% increase, which comes out to be 496 mil. But lets just use the original 1% royalty rate to be conservative and safe.
In 2011, Google earned 37.9 billion in revenues, 96% of which came from advertising. So Google made 36.38 billion from advertising in 2011. If revenues remain CONSTANT for the next 3.5 years, that is 109.14 billion in revenues for the next 3.5 years. Keep in mind, Google has a pretty constant growth of advertising revenues. 2009 to 2010, growth of 23%, 2010 to 2011, growth of 29%, and for the first 3 quarters of 2012, average growth of 20%. My numbers do not take google's growth into account.
Google revenues for the next 3.5 years: 109.14 billion
Vringo royalty percent: 1%
109.14 billion x .01 royalty fee = 1.1 billion in future revenues.
Then lets add in the initial 500mil award
1.1bil + 500 mil = $1.6bil
$1.6 billion / 100 million shares = $16 a share including future royalty fees.
This number does not include a multiplier, which will most likely be awarded. It also does not take into account google's growth for the next 3 years. And it also only uses a 1% royalty fee.
16 x 1 = $16 pps
16 x 2 = $32 pps
16 x 3 = $48 pps
16 x 5 = $80 pps
16 x 10 = $160 pps
Cameron Trial
From Yahoo Board regarding Goog's comment on lawsuits...
http://finance.yahoo.com/mbview/threadview/?&bn=335d0cab-c8c2-325a-b1c7-5bd038d7c88f&tid=1351042130169-9d6a940f-9c24-4059-9ec5-dcfda76b8205&tls=la%2Cd%2C4
From Google's 2011 Annual Report Page 75+ on IP Lawsuits
By caseyny2005 . 13 minutes ago . Permalink
"Patent and Intellectual Property Claims
We have had patent, copyright, and trademark infringement lawsuits filed against us claiming that certain of
our products, services, and technologies, including Android, Google Search, Google AdWords, Google AdSense,
Google Books, Google News, Google Image Search, Google Chrome, Google Talk, Google Voice, and YouTube,
infringe the intellectual property rights of others. Adverse results in these lawsuits may include awards of
substantial monetary damages, costly royalty or licensing agreements, or orders preventing us from offering
certain features, functionalities, products, or services, and may also cause us to change our business practices,
and require development of non-infringing products or technologies, which could result in a loss of revenues for us
and otherwise harm our business.
In addition, many of our agreements with our customers and partners require us to indemnify them for certain
intellectual property infringement claims against them, which would increase our costs as a result of defending
such claims, and may require that we pay significant damages if there were an adverse ruling in any such claims.
Furthermore, such customers and partners may discontinue the use of our products, services, and technologies,
as a result of injunctions or otherwise, which could result in loss of revenues and adversely impact our business.
Other
We are also regularly subject to claims, suits, government investigations, and other proceedings involving
competition and antitrust (such as the pending investigations by the FTC and the EC described above), intellectual
75property, privacy, tax, labor and employment, commercial disputes, content generated by our users, goods and
services offered by advertisers or publishers using our platforms, and other matters. Such claims, suits,
government investigations, and other proceedings could result in fines, civil or criminal penalties, or other adverse
consequences.
Certain of our outstanding legal matters include speculative claims for substantial or indeterminate amountsof damages. We record a liability when we believe that it is both probable that a loss has been incurred, and the
amount can be reasonably estimated. We evaluate, on a monthly basis, developments in our legal matters that
could affect the amount of liability that has been previously accrued, and make adjustments as appropriate.
Significant judgment is required to determine both likelihood of there being and the estimated amount of a loss
related to such matters.
With respect to our outstanding legal matters, based on our current knowledge, we believe that the amount or
range of reasonably possible loss will not, either individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on
our business, consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. However, the outcome of such
legal matters is inherently unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties.
We expense legal fees in the period in which they are incurred"
Not sure if this has been posted..
http://themarketsareopen.blogspot.ca/2012/10/vrng-vringo-inc-amexvrngs-patent-battle-with.html?utm_source=BP_recent
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2012
Vringo, Inc. (AMEX:VRNG)’s patent battle with Google Inc (NASDAQ:GOOG) goes to trial
Vringo, Inc.(NYSEAMEX:VRNG)’s patent battle with Google Inc (NASDAQ:GOOG) over the use of Adwords and Adsense has huge implications for the technology industry and for the search giant.
Since the patents under dispute are related to AdWords and Adsense, which are vital to Google's revenues, any decision on this will have a huge impact for the company.
One of the patents which Google is being accused of infringing has been described as follows by Ars Technica:
`A search engine system is provided for a portal site on the internet. The search engine system employs a regular search engine to make one-shot or demand searches for information entities which provide at least threshold matches to user queries. The search engine system also employs a collaborative/content-based filter to make continuing searches for information entities which match existing wire queries and are ranked and stored over time in user-accessible, system wires corresponding to the respective queries. A user feedback system provides collaborative feedback data for integration with content profile data in the operation of the collaborative/content-based filter. A query processor determines whether a demand search or a wire search is made for an input query.'
The patent was granted originally to Ken Lang, who sold it to Lycos and then bought it back. Lang has now joined Vringo and has decided that he wants to be paid for the use of the technology.
According to the complaint made by Vringo with the use of the technology, which filters out search results for advertisements, Google's revenue and market share rose significantly.
Good for you I admire a young person learning about these things....not worth being upset about other peoples comments. Keep asking questions, stay at peace and enjoy life....
You are way ahead of most people your age...God bless
Got this from Benzinga....
Hearing Chatter of Possible Google Meeting with Vringo....rumour only at this point but where there is smoke there is fire........
I am not sure why people are hung up on this $3.5 million figure. Why does it matter how much was spent on creating and/or asserting the patent? If you look at the NTP case against RIM, the amount of money spent was even less than that figure yet Mr Stout was able to extract almost $700 million dollars from them.
The bottom line here is that Google did not create the model they are using to build their company and there should be acknowledgement that without what Lang set up would they have been where they are?
To me this is a no brainer from a jurors perspective. What Google says are minor differences in their approach is irrelevant. That is why the courts have allowed this to be where it is and why most of the rulings have gone in VRNG's favour.
So there is no middle ground from what you posted to $20? Since you are so prescient in your analysis why bother posting here? In reality you don't know so to come across as if this is the only outcome possible is not credible...
The reality is you have presented one possible outcome there are others that may be more correct. To assume that it is all going to play out as you say is somewhat disingenuous. You have no idea what the ultimate settlement will be. The royalties come into play also....