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.
they are supposed to be negotiating right now according to judge's order so this is nothing new.
i find it unlikely they will come to an agreement given google's stance
agree with everything you said but point is, Google has effectively told the courts they won't agree on an RR and did so many months ago....
so unfortunately, until this man rules, we are in an endless loop...and he has played right into it...
let's hope december one solves some of the issues and HJJ rules quickly thereafter.
And didn't google say they need an RR ruling before they can settle? What is it, a game of chicken between google and the judge?
It's beyond absurd what's happening and even when you read their recent response, a lack of grounding in reality, arguing points that have already been opined and ruled upon by the jury, the judge and the uspto.
I am not sure what he expects from VRNG here this is the biggest red flag.
My hope is that the discussion in front of the magistrate on December 1 (if that is even the date) finally puts google in their place.
The documents are posted as a record to the courts (and public), and its also the electronic transfer of motions, documentation etc between parties to the courts and vice versa.
The reason they are sealed is simply because they contain sensitive information (material non-public, ie strategic, insider commentary etc).
Yes saw that as well, positive news. More reason for both ZTE and ASUS to want to settle (and perhaps the reason, I believe JJS mentioned that around 60% of patent cases in Germany are settled before a ruling)....
November has been interesting, December should hopefully bear fruit!
Specific to VHC? Actually that's in all probability entirely incorrect and simply a grand assumption/opinion based on zero facts. Morover, given even VHC couldn't 'prove it' nor could FINRA and the SEC, how exactly can you say that its 'specific' to VHC?
There has been a number of concerns raised here, other boards etc about the short interest, how the stock has behaved etc, alluding to manipulation. Indeed, many small and large cap stocks are regularly manipulated, and as the VHC 10Q stated, these manipulators tend to be one step ahead of the regulators. Actually, to think that its so blatant that a company had to report it as a risk factor is not only shocking, but also telling. Assuming it occurs in one stock in a universe of what, 1000's, is likely a fairly simple, myopic, and dangerous assumption. If there is money to be made, those manipulating and clearly getting away with it, would replicate that strategy.
If however, you have a way to prove this issue isn't occurring in VRNG, please do share your proof and as well, perhaps share it with the regulatory authorities, I am sure they would very much appreciate your valuable insight.
For those who question my view that manipulation is occurring...interesting commentary in VHC's recent 10Q - in the notes/risk factors.
"In addition, we believe there has been and may continue to be substantial trading in derivatives of our stock, including short selling activity or related similar activities, which are beyond our control and which may be beyond the full control of the SEC and Financial Institutions Regulatory Authority ("FINRA"). While SEC and FINRA rules prohibit some forms of short selling and other activities that may result in stock price manipulation, such activity may nonetheless occur without detection or enforcement. We have held conversations with regulators concerning trading activity in our stock; however, there can be no assurance that should there be any illegal manipulation in the trading of our stock it will be detected, prosecuted or successfully eradicated. Significant short selling or other types of market manipulation could cause our stock trading price to decline, to become more volatile, or both."
Wow...
I disagree. I have been watching level 2 for over six months and on a regular basis the majority of sizable sales have been through edgx when buys have been distributed. I am not the only one who's noticed this. Many here and on st would concur.
Happy to look at some data if you have some. Again, my view is anecdotal from watching daily but happy to see some data if you have it!
Have a great day!
yes..if you watch edgx on level 2...every day we see a move up, then volume slows and a TON of shares keeps getting flooded through that mm...appears to be the 'key' short...
its like clockwork...
Great post snoooop! refreshing to see someone use actual facts to back up their statements.
this commentary certainly lends itself to the view that a 75-100 ml award, absent a valid work around is actually nonsensical and highly lacking in any form of diligence, and most certainly not grounded in facts!
well done! thanks for the valuable fact based insight and views.
please see my post below...I look forward to your 'report' and how the revenues reported by zte are tied to the actual function of the patents.
I think that is major and material issue, as is the selection of comparables, how those comparables are actually similar in scope, type, time period, materiality, etc... these are always important factors As such, providing an explanation of why you selected certain comparable is key, as well as how they are comparable (ie the patents). Which leads to the next point - understanding the comparable and zte patents in depth.
I would suggest you provide an analysis of the patents in play as well, to lend credibility to your readers that you indeed understand the function of the zte patents and not simply what has been 'described' on the VRNG website, true depth of understanding is always important in assessing value.
good luck! hopefully this is a terrific report full of insight and analysis. We have seen many seeking alpha reports from longs and shorts that are simply a rehash of public knowledge with an opinion tacked on. Usually, those articles have little substance / depth of understanding of real valuation drivers in these types of companies.
I very much look forward to reading a report of great depth on how to 'actually' value a group of patents. I expect this will take a great deal of time and research, and will be relatively voluminous though!
Good luck!
its wrong
Yes agreed, many moving parts and a very different dynamic (especially with injunctive relief at play in Germany).
Point being, management asked for the moon, it likely won't get it, but VRNG also isn't in this to simply recoup its book value of the patents.
Suggesting values so low, that after splits for NOK, legal etc, the company is left with a pittance, doesn't sound like a good strategic decision by management does it?
Even logic tells us there is some pretty significant value in this ZTE case, as I am fairly certain management wouldn't be undertaking a global licensing battle for a minute return.
Any valuation of vrng that excludes:
1. The value of the msft patents
2. The view of management in the value of the zte patents
3. Ignores Google case facts, the jury ruling, the judges rulings, case law and precedent.
Has zero credibility.
Yes fair point, I understand you were simply providing management's views, (I assumed you were aligned). Again, I am not sure where in the spectrum it lies, but certainly will be lower than their 'ask'.
case closed.
Valuation involves sum of the parts friend. Suggesting people over valued the msft transaction is well beyond your knowledge without that information.
Your expertise and your colleague's interesting perspective certainly miss important factors of the analysis. As a result, that view really holds little credibility.
You may want to consider that going forward.
Have a great day!
what's the value of the patents in the msft transaction?
strategic/blocking value, and potential cash flows to accrue from those received?
thanks
Can you and your expert friends value the patents they received from msft for us.
I'd be curious to know how you did that, what value you put on the potential strategic value, potential cash flow streams that may accrue from those patents.
Thanks in advance.
:)
well what i find amazing as i said ...are these two points in addition
1. From G'(1048) they state "Further, there is a reasonable basis for believing that the patents are invalid and not infringed which precludes willfulness as a matter of law."
Really? Wow..both patents have been upheld after multiple USPTO reviews and a jury verdict. This point in and of itself should tell HJJ that 'scolding' VRNG is absurd and these people are in denial and not willing to work in reality. Really? they are still arguing the patents are invalid? are they in some alternate universe?
2. Same motion they state that the jury awarded .5% and therefore the RR should be the same. Again, alternate reality. Even if you remove the discussion on past damages and not even address whether or not there was an error, that SAME JURY STATED UNEQUIVOCALLY, that a future RR is warranted to the end of the patents at 3.5% of 20.9% so what exactly are they arguing.
I am looking forward to the settlement conference where a magistrate has their way with QE's absurdity.
Its like QE is a kid with terets repeating nonsense.
I wonder if QE will submit a motion whining about having to negotiate on black friday?
HJJ we even sat down on black friday but VRNG wouldn't accept .5% as a rr
lol!
It's imperative that investors listen to the company in terms of damage assessments.
Anonymous poster's on message boards do not have the insight into the patents, legal precedents etc that a world class legal team does.
I would urge investors to consider that when reading other people's 'guestimates' of damages (which is effectively what they are) that if they are implying that they have better insight than the company (by having significantly different values) they are simply spewing nonsense, as none of us have better insight.
Now will vrng get an agreement for what they have asked for? Unlikely, as typically in any negotiation you start at opposite ends of the spectrum and meet somewhere in the middle. However, the company does have better views as to the worth, REALISTIC damages than any one of us ever will.
Most seasoned investors would understand that but there are many amateur investors and pretend lawyers on these boards so take people's assessments as opinion not fact. Anyone suggesting they know better than VRNG management and their legal team, is foolish and arrogant.
I know, wasn't suggesting you do...was simply stating my view for all! you are much more even keel than I!
well if they go long, they don't reverse and go short (they simply sell).
However, you are correct many of the shorts could be 'day trading' shorts that are buying to cover. But that really nets out to zero.
Issue is however, when you look at the volume and 90% of the sales are short for the day, this is a very bullish sign.
It means no one (long) is really selling, and the only reason the price isn't moving up hard is because shorts keep hitting the bids and dropping the price.
Eventually they run out of ammo and the surest sign is when we see what's happening now, 40-50% short volume per day and yet the pps is rising, it means they are losing their grip.
This is going to be squeeze like none other, mark my words.
Lol yes! but i see that as impossible given QE is still in Narnia thinking they can talk to Lions and Owls and they can get their way....
Reading that brief tells me there is no way. They are lawyers and their own arguments aren't even consistent with the facts?
I have said this many times, and thankfully VRNG mentioned this in their brief.
1. Jury said 3.5% of 20.9% for an RR
2. QE is saying the jury awarded 0.5% (error or not)
3. This was on past damages no the RR
4. Yet QE simply IGNORES THIS? LOL...wow...
how exactly is VRNG supposed to negotiate with these morons?
incorrect. I have been watching the daily short interest since that report came out, we have been averaging around 35% of daily volume as short...
moreover, during that volume spike before, and after, HJJ's sit down, over 3 mil shares were sold short, in 2 days!
Basically over those 2 days, the vast majority of sales were short sales not longs selling...
we're likely at our highest level right now, ever
take a look at nov 6/7
http://shortanalytics.com/getshortchart.php?tsymbol=vrng
agreed, no wonder this case has taken so long we just read the same tripe over and over and over....wonderful legal system the usa has!
actually look at the volume since HJJ's sit down and the majority of selling has been shorting..
we are above 26% of the float right now, i believe we are actually at the highest level ever if you look at shortanalytics.com
I also find this quote funny because its another one it total contravention of the JUDGE'S ORDER
"patent claims to encompass a substantially redesigned system, it must do so via a new complaint"
The Judge has RULED THAT NO NEW TRIAL IS WARRANTED YET THEY ARGUE IT AGAIN..
I do not understand how this man HJJ expects VRNG to be able to negotiate with this group other than to accept a pittance.
I would agree but shouldn't this have 'not sit well with him' about QE already?
This was my point when I mentioned I never understood how HJJ in good conscience could criticize VRNG, just READ THIS DAMN RESPONSE HJJ!
AND TELL US ALL PLEASE JUDGE, HOW THE HELL YOU CAN NEGOTIATE WITH A GROUP SPEWING THIS NONSENSE!!!
THEY ARE IN DENIAL
Yes but you can't find a way to compromise with people who are spewing nonsense. the perfect example of this is in google's own response brief.
they suggest that a royalty inline with what the jury provided for past damages is fair (error number).
now
1. Notwithstanding the error, the jury clearly mentioned 3.5% of 20.9% for a running royalty, so this would, to a normal, rational human being be considered the starting point.
2. They have been wilful and know it, and the courts will find it as such, and HJJ has mentioned he'll use the modified georgia pacific...so...again rational group....
3. They don't even want to accept reality here sir..that's the issue.
While I concur there are areas where VRNG could have certainly been more efficient and not gamed, as I have even criticized this in the past, the point of them settling, without HJJ is not going to happen.
Exactly and "Patricia" is incorrect! Lol
I mean in 'general' a ruling in German doesn't mean ZTE will settle in every jurisdiction. Yes Germany is quick, as JJS has mentioned on here, often a very brief court hearing (2-4 hrs) and usually within a month a ruling.
While we can all hope this to be the case (a global agreement), if they (ZTE) see value in utilizing the same tactics as Google has, in other countries (to the extent possible), they may very well do so.
I fear many here are assuming everything works out in our favor in every instance. Ie Judge rules for us in December for Google, ZTE settles globally etc, none of this may happen.
I do think we get something positive from Germany assuming we win by mid December. How much that is, who knows, if its one country vs global who knows.
But I see many on all boards making grand assumptions all in the longs favor, which is very dangerous and only sets us up for disappointment.
how so? what time is the hearing? and why do you assume there will be a PR? it's simply the hearing...there won't be any immediate ruling...
LOL!
Oh no you didant!!!
Comparing this to apple....oh my
good for you...the majority of shareholders in this stock are underwater. I am happy you've made money, most people haven't...and as shareholders we have a right to expect management to actually make MONEY....and i believe a year and a half to prove you can is ample time.
you think institutions who bought in mid three's aren't going to cut bait and run if this team doesn't put a REAL WIN up on the board before the start of the year? they don't sit on dogs buddy.
what happens when those shares hit the market and there's not buyers?
its a fair comment but if we're invested in this, and google wins the w/a debate this company is dead, they will have lost all credibility...
its a binary decision here and not because of money because those tuts who bought in have bought the 'team' and patents at this point...nothing else as there have been no earnings.
If they fail, and note after stating publicly via their court documents that the w/a is false, well there goes the farm.
I am not delusional nor in denial 'friend'. I bought it to make money and all most of us have done is LOST money.
Ignore that simple fact to your hearts desire. I do not. I see a company that seems to be more happy with 'how they've built their team', their 'milestones' vs two years later not having any earnings.
That's what matters...because we don't make money on empty promises friend. Unless you're a short or person trading swings or management.
Because longs are the only one of that group getting screwed.
I think you are hoping for what you 'want'.
1. ZTE will drag it out if it can, why not? Its leverage, look, its working for google.
2. ZTE has no bearing on the google case, not sure why you think it does and can have any impact on google. they are independent and wont have any bearing on each other.
so what we see a pop for 3 minutes and then we trade right back down? lol...how is that weak?
wow
interesting, problem is, its simply a temporary reprieve, the shorts will jump right back in