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.
I'd have to check but I am not sure if its exactly the same issue. I believe the issue with VRNG was Google used Laches as a defense.
In this case its a more technical issue that could have added additional risk for longs throughout the process. That being said it was addressed and corrected which helps
My concern really was on appealability of that decision to limit the damages to 2013 to 2016 as it can have a material impact on the damages award here if WDDD get's through to the courts.
Give earlier comments, it appears that appeal is in play and given the patents are now pointing to the correct Nov 95 priority date this is good for us if I am understanding the issues correctly (and of course we A) get through to the courts B) It is appealed and won).
I have said it a pure gamble since day one.
As I said in a previous post which was deleted
1. Event driven stocks are basically call options so they are gambles. If you're trying to time a trade on a 1-3 cent stock wth the potential for 100-200 mil dollars you really don't get what an even driven stock is, or you're happy trading for profits that can buy you a gum ball, good on ya if that's all you can afford.
2. Most who understand this space and spec stocks in general simply bet as much as we're willing to lose. Thus, an experienced investor is actually cautious day one, which I always have been, that caution is evidenced by how much I am willing to put at risk - since this is pure speculation. As I stated 'I have reached my limit' - that implies I go in with a limit and caution. I can understand that you'd miss that logic as most amateur investors don't really understand that investing and trading is really about risk management.
3. A great book on investing is by Benjamin Graham, called the Intelligent Investor - it goes over that difference (spec vs investing) in great detail. Amateur traders often cannot differentiate between the two and assume that people don't understand portfolio theory because they (the amateurs) don't.
4. For example, the speculative part of one's portfolio should really only be 5-10% total since it is so high risk. If you lose it all it really does nothing to you. Amateurs however, often overload on such positions looking for the 'golden ticket'. You can identify these people through their commentary where they assume others behave in the same irresponsible financial manner (ie 'assuming others suddenly become cautious lol) - again the point on risk management).
5. So little guy there's no change in my views or investment philosophy, just that I have reached my limit for this speculative play, one doesn't want to be overweight spec stocks in their portfolio.
Hope you do some reading and further your investment knowledge, some books could really assist you!
Question for those who've been in the stock a long while.
1. There was an issue in the past about the provisional date of the patents and concern that the patents would be invalid because of this.
2. I believe the courts accepted the correction to the provisional and as WDDD's submission to the PTAB states the priority date is Nov 1995.
3. I am also aware that for some reason (technical that I haven't read enough about) the patents can only reach back to 2013 right now.
4. That being said, I recall reading something to the effect that WDDD could still challenge this (going back only three years). And given the mess up with the filing dates the original ruling of 3 years could be changed.
Anyone have clarification on my not so clear view on the above and in particular number 4? Thanks in advance and links are welcomed so I can ensure factual info is shared!
You're welcome. I personally just try and share relevant information that can help people make their own decisions on a stock and provide opinions based on facts.
I find if people share REAL information and facts it helps all people regardless of their position.
I personally wish people would keep their bashing and pumping to themselves and just provide a view based on factual information. It would lead to valuable discussion and increase the collective knowledge of people involved in whatever capacity in any stock.
Unfortunately, too many people want to use these boards to 'influence' others to help their position so they get upset when factual information is shared that is contrary to their position.
Personally, I would prefer to see any and all factual information, because if it aligns with my position great, it makes me have more conviction, if not well it makes me think about maybe being wrong and perhaps exiting, but you can't make that call without real facts.
As for others and their positions, I could care less what they do, I cannot influence enough people to move the market on a stock nor can anyone else here, so the nattering just gets annoying. The VRNG/FH board is a prime example of that nonsense, alot of trolls.
There has indeed been some good sharing of info on this board and certainly alot in the past, hopefully it will continue and we will have a court case to discuss in a few months if we can get through the PTAB. Sadly, the market is not treating us as though we will!
Yes and S&G would have never taken this on contingency in the first place if they hadn't done their full diligence. Time is money to them so they will spend their time where they see the best odds of being paid.
I am also surprised it has dipped this low, but when you have heavy selling (convert) and no catalyst to compel buyers to get in right now that is the normal result.
I certainly wished I had timed slightly better but in the end I would have likely spent the same $ value just would have had more shares, so it probably would not have reduced my exposure in any manner.
I was leafing through the filings at the PTAB this evening and while the arguments helped me feel confident that WDDD is in the right, I couldn't help but notice that Bungie provided WDDDs financial statements as one of THEIR exhibits.
To me this just continues to reek of corruption and their 'signal' to the PTAB to say, hey these guys are trolls don't let them win. I can't see any reason why Bungie would be using WDDD's financials as an exhibit otherwise. A bit of an aside but drives me nuts.
I really hope the law is followed here for once but also read alot about this sector which always makes me nervous, because you can't really trust that everything is on the up and up.
On a good note, outside of the renewed attention on the PTAB at SCOTUS, the FTC is looking at Google again in the US on anti trust / monopoly issues related to search. Anything making Google a concern could scare the cockroach politicians away from them for a while....which could help in relation to the laws they have put in place for the country (google that is).
Let's hope the law is followed here..and wish you luck in lowering your ACB. I am tempted but am being disciplined now. I have added to my limit and should really only add on news that is positive.
Given the way this convert holder is selling, this is turning less from gamble and more to prayer! LOL
Fair enough on the additional dilution (if any) and debt (if any). As for the current converts they have converted. If you look at the most recent filing (I can't recall the exact dates but) they came due at the end of April and early May.
So 100% of those nasty converts are now equity. The filings won't show how many shares are 'left' to be sold, they will simply show the total amount of shares outstanding as they are now issued and outstanding.
The information on the convert was known before the most recent 10Q
I don't believe OP1 was correct here's why
1. Check the filings, the converts came due at the end of April and early this month. If I recall correctly (and could be wrong) he was 'told' that the convert was almost done prior to that.
2. Not sure how they were sold 'forward', the selling pressure wouldn't start until the date they actually converted because that is the date the debt converts to equity and they can sell. That is unless there was some shorting going on prior but if you look at the short interest (assuming the data is valid here), its nothing. Such shorting usually does occur when dilution is imminent but according to this data, this doesn't appear to be the case (again assuming its valid data).
http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/WDDD/short-sales
3. I am pretty sure whomever was telling OP1 the convert was done was F-O-S and trying to pump the stock, get buyers in so they could dump the shares at higher prices. Realize this, the MM is working the trade for the convert holder not us, so he'll say whatever he needs to get better execution for his client.
4. Looking back at OP1 comments of how many shares traded AH for the last few weeks we see that aligning with the dates of the convertible debenture converting to stock and thus being available for sale.
5. I haven't tallied up all the sales AH and done the math on what the dollar value is but my guess is there is still a decent amount to go.
6. This is not related to ATVI in my view. (ie I assume you are suggesting someone is shorting but the data doesn't support that)
7. The only upside is someone rather large is soaking up these shares, albeit at a low price but there is someone buying of size, that is for certain. As for each seller there is a buyer and given the consistent sales of size, it cant just be bored retailers buying.
Another 225k AH
I had this post removed as offtopic
yes someone just wants out, clearly this is the convert holder and has been for a while.
As I mentioned before I think OP1 was being fed BS in the hopes that people would start buying and push the price so that the holder could sell at higher prices.
Seems that was the case as the shares keep coming and really what retail holder would sell at this point, may as well keep the optionality
Helpful link outlining the key Scotus cases that could have an impact either small or large to us.
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2016/05/pending-supreme-patent-cases-update.html
Note MCM and Cooper have not yet been granted, let's hope they are.
Cooper is further ahead as it was scheduled for conference to discuss (meaning a judge did see there was a legitimate issue) but that discussion has been rescheduled. That could mean it will be tied to Cuozzo or MCM as requested in their brief, could mean nothing.
MCM is yet to be determined if it will reach conference.
SCOTUS process is this:
1. Someone submits a writ of certiori
2. Next step is, if a judge sees a legit issue worth discussing the writ is added to the conference discussion list (added to conference). It has not yet been approved at this stage, only added to the list for the justices to discuss if it should be heard. If not added to conference it is rejected outright meaning no one sees issue and it is reported as denied.
3. If the writ makes it through to the conference, SCOTUS still has to decide whether or not to hear the case. The advantage obviously, is if it makes it to conference there is clearly at least one judge with an issue, so someone is 'championing' the case by this stage.
4. If the case is going to be heard it is scheduled for oral arguments after the conference. If not, it is reported as denied.
5. After oral arguments it takes a couple of months to hear what the opinion is.
So alot of steps for each writ, hopefully this is of assistance to those who aren't overly familiar with the SCOTUS process.
Interesting first paragraph....I see your point now....
thanks
Cooper hasn't been accepted yet so it won't be joined. That being said, at this stage even an incremental slow change at the PTAB from Cuozzo will help.
I'd be happy with baby steps vs SCOTUS wimping out, which hopefully they won't do. Roberts seemed to have a burr in his saddle and given he is the chief justice hopefully he has alot of weight.
Convert question (as I am too lazy to dig it up).
Just trying to do some 'guestimate' math here.
I checked the historical volume of WDDD over that past three months and over that time, 24 times it was > 850k shares traded.
That 850k number was chosen as it is higher than the average of 660k over that same period (so I arbitrarily picked the actual 850k but assumed a "higher than average" volume day usually signals the convert holder selling). 850k shares traded is a 28% higher volume day than average, this seems fair from a sniff test perspective.
So if are to assume:
1. 850K is a fair number for a high volume day
2. And that on those days the seller sold at least 300k shares (seems reasonable give the eye test of what we keep seeing during the day and AH, indeed it may be low).
3. That would equal a total of 300k X 24 days = 7.2 mil shares sold in the last 3 months.
4. The question is, how many shares did the convert holder need to get rid of? Anyone have that number? It's easy math and in the filings, I just am on my phone and too lazy to squint through it right now.
Yes but Roberts vote alone is not enough, others have to agree and that is the challenge as is every ruling at SCOTUS.
Let's hope they start to reign that group in.
I would agree with all your comments.
1. The reason ATVI got Bungie involved in the IPR (as we all know they did but the PTAB chooses to ignore) was not only the reputation of the IPR proces s but that its a time delay, all serial infringers do this against small companies. Time= money because of legal fees during the process.
2. Agree it may be that the convert is still leaking out. There was approx 200k traded around 3:30 today and again a big block AH this is not retail given how long its been going on.
3. Yes, someone w decent sized pockets is buying that is also clear.
4. I am of the thinking it could be the convert was done but this is new dilution given Kidrin wouldn't need much more to get through the PTAB at this stage. The upside is the need to raise more cash is likely almost done from a legal cost perspective since the legal fee side of the ptab process is probably almost all done -and we know the full case is on contingency.
Great to see the sharing of REAL facts about wireless charging here. Thanks for the input/insight.
I have stated a couple of important points on FliCharge in the past that seem to be getting lost in the 'noise' here that should be re-iterated.
1. FLiCharge is not expected to be some HUGE money maker, it was a SMALL acquisition.
2. VRNG paid 11% of the company in Mid October 2015 for BOTH Group Mobile and FLiCharge.
3. At that time the market cap was around $35 mil which translates into approximate $3.5-$4 million as an acquisition cost for BOTH businesses
4. Given the company has guided revenue on GMobile at $15 million this year should they reach that amount, with a 15% margin as per the conference all that would mean pretty much a 2 year payback on the acquisition. Pretty good by any measure again for BOTH businesses.
5. The focus on FliCharge as some sort of make or break for this company is COMPLETELY LUDICROUS if one looks at the acquisition cost and moreover the payback period from simply group mobile.
6. The advantage of FC is that it's a nice addition to bring a potentially decent revenue stream and to provide an operating company to offset NPE risk when challenging their patents vs infringers. Smart move - diversify and own a company that has patents so that any infringer faces a risk of injunction, and lose the 'troll' handle.
7. On this point you made...
Another great article on the PTAB by Gene Quinn. Clear as day how they are a corrupt / unchecked agency that needs to be reeled in. Let's hope SCOTUS does
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/05/10/new-patent-office-study-defends-ptab-motion-amend-practice/id=69007/
Quite interesting to see the names that supported the governement on this (amicus briefs)
Google lol - Can there be any more of a smoking gun than getting Lee in charge of the death squad? LOL!!
Apple and others...
Most of the biggest thieves see things fine as they are, of course since they all likely took part in writing the AIA.
WOW..
Ah touche! Great point, they can raise issues 'de novo' as our google's friend at the CAFC did, so utilizing an amicus argument should be fair game.
I am going through them now, I don't see anything on the constitutionality directly thus far but alot of commentary that alludes to the issues in a similar manner (ie property rights, the argument that an administrative agency can't have rule/law making authority etc), tangential points.
Here's one amicus that addresses one part of the constitutionality issue directly
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/15-446_tsac-Law-Professors-Dolin-et-al.pdf
I have to reread the Cuozzo arguments. I can't remember if they (Cuozzo) addressed the constitutionality issue in their writ or not do you?
I know it was brought up in some of the amicus briefs but not sure how SCOTUS or any court addresses an issue that may be part of a case but not raised by the petitioner / only in an amicus brief. Ie 'can they address it' or is it ignored because the petitioner didn't raise it?
If they can address it then yes it may make Cooper and the other case (MCM) moot.
Then do the opposite of what he says lol, I've shorted all his long stocks and made a killing!
HAHA!
Sure hope so, then I'll buy up about 7-8 million shares on the cheap!
I am sure alot of others will as well!
Weeee! Bring on the cheapies, I want this nice and cheap prior to any rulings so that I can add if we win!
hahaahhah!
:)
PS you pick up that finance 101 book yet? I can suggest a few good ones if you need, and when you're ready, I can give you the name of the one we used at NYU when I did my mba a number of years ago
Good luck little guy!
One thing that just came to mind on Cooper v Lee.
1. Because it was scheduled for conference there was a judge who felt this needed to be discussed, I forgot about this part of the process.
2. This is a positive no doubt
3. This could mean that the reschedule may indeed be related to the Cuozzo outcome. Ie should SCOTUS feel Couzzo issues need to be addressed I would be very surprised if this issue was ignored. Cuozzo may mean a great deal to patent holders right now.
Just a thought, means little lol, but something to consider.
Ouch another day more red, more green for me and my short position in this POS
hahahah
Love it!
Looks like another 200k ish after hours.
Well I just read an interesting article on how SCOTUS seems to be 'avoiding' taking on challenging cases this term given only 8 on the panel.
While they have said losing scalia doesn't have a major impact as most cases are not 5-4 the case choices seem to be telling a slightly different story
The reason it could be delayed is this is a MAJOR decision if they are to find that IPR's are unconstitutional. I hope its because they are guaging how the the group views a related issue in Cuozzo first but its hard to say / assume anything.
I would as usual urge caution in making assumptions!
Wasn't really my find, it was Jetta mentioning prior that alerted me
Hwever, both cases that are very important have not been accepted yet. I will get excited if and when they are accepted and addressed.
Yes I assumed as such, came across it by fluke thanks for raising it on here. Likely wouldn't have noticed it otherwise.
Let's hope they address this major issue!
Can't argue that! Lol
Most of the pundits expect a ruling on Cuozzo by June but it could take a bit longer, no one really knows. As for Cooper, they haven't accepted the writ yet so not sure if it will be heard this term or potentially next or even heard at all.
What is interesting on Cooper is it says it has been "rescheduled' here:
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/cooper-v-lee/
This is interesting as I noticed this change AFTER the orals for Cuozzo were completed. I wonder and HOPE that perhaps SCOTUS is going to make a pretty substantial and landmark / encompassing decision in the Cuozzo case that would affect Cooper and thus the rescheduling. Ie Given Chief Justice Roberts seemed to have issue with the entire process at the PTAB one would hope they simply address it all at once, vs piecemeal, but only time will tell and it likely is just hopium.
As for timing see this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedures_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
Fair points and agree with most other than the following:
And just to add....
1. It is "cheap" for a reason, let's not forget that....
2. I do find many of those in these stocks (and myself included in the past) seemed to assume we 'knew better' than the market (ie see VRNG)
3. The market is a great arbiter of risk, what it is saying at this stage is 'no one wants this stock' given the risk of it going to zero, and that is reality, let's not ignore that and internally make 'assumptions' as though we will win at the PTAB. The market has handicapped those odds and it says it gives almost zero chance.
4. I wouldn't be long if I wasn't an idealist and didn't believe that law does matter but at the same time, I am also not going in blind like I did with VRNG. This time I have made a much smaller investment but am not blind to the realities of this sector and the 'gaming' going on at the PTAB. If we ignore that reality we are being extremely naive.
5. Simply put, the market believes the PTAB will find 'some way' to kill the patents because that's what they do.
Let's hope for law and fact to matter for once at that agency but let's also not ignore the reality of what the market is saying as well.
Thus, we all need to accept that we may actually lose 100% of our investment in this not because we are not right, not because on a legal and technical basis the patents are invalid, not because Kidrin isn't right, but rather simply that a corrupt agency will act in its usual corrupt manner. Realize we are betting on the fact that a corrupt agency will not act corrupt and that is a very risky proposition, one the market won't make!
Good luck to all!
$4's are coming in this junk box
Oh and maybe you should have used your mod role as its meant to be used, not to delete other people's comments that 'you didn't like' because they were right and you were wrong and couldn't deal with it?
Have you picked up that finance 101 book yet? LOL
Oh by the way, this stock is TANKING...JUST AS I SAID IT WOULD
Remember that efficient market theory? LOL...ohhhh right a stock doesn't move until the day the dilution actually occurs in your mind!!
bahahahahha
Some facts from the conference call provided by VRNG Management, and the 10q.
A reminder to all investors to always rely on COMPANY DISCLOSURES AND COMMENTARY/ FILINGS FOR THEIR INFORMATION ABOUT A STOCK. Commentary on message boards is not a reliable source of company information.
1. Group Mobile. The company takes advance bookings. Q1 bookings were based on orders from 2015. Simply annualizing Q1 to determine revenue does not account for growth / new bookings. The COMPANY STATED that based on BOOKINGS, they are guiding 2016 revenue to $15 million. As for GMobile being worthless and needing a cash infusion/dilution that is clearly not the case given the REVENUE GUIDANCE and other commentary on the conference call. The company also mentioned they see GMobile as a 15% margin company.
2. I am fairly certain, most investors are aware that FliCharge is not launching until June, indeed they mentioned this on the conference call – this is factual information. As a result, being concerned about a lack of revenue for a company that has not launched yet really is a nonsensical concern one would think. As for the diminmus amount of revenue they recorded, no one knows what that is related to, and again it matters little. Revenue will matter POST the launch of the company = common sense Again, all of this has been stated on the conference call
3. Fli charge's technology is currently the best on the market. Any other alternatives are as mentioned, 4-5 years away at best. They also have significant draw backs - throughput/time to charge, radiation, etc. Thankfully investors understand that saying that 5 years out there may be something better in the tech space really means little. Perhaps in 5 years there will be an air powered automobile, I guess based on that no investors should invest in Telsa! Yes that is wonderful logic! And yes, FC is not Telsa but see the forest for the trees and the point please.
4. The $8.9 million settlement did not come from Hawuei
5. The company is not 'necessarily' positioning itself for a sale LookingforBigCash. They are diversifying their revenue sources given the challenges in the IP space. They mentioned should a sale of the PATENT PORTFOLIO make sense they would consider it, but this is a boilerplate comment. What they are saying is they look at all avenues to increase shareholder value. Further, in my view if they were thinking of selling the portfolio, an operating company vs another NPE would make more sense given the operating companies face less legal issues enforcing their patents than do NPE’s – thus they would be willing to pay more than an NPE because they could recoup more value from enforcing it.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Excellent Quarter in my view.
1. The past is the past so all we could hope for is as we move forward we see improvement in revenues, cost containment, and strategy and we did.
2. VRNG now has $30 million in cash.
3. According to the conference call, the $8.9 million was achieved without litigation, so pretty much zero cost. This is EXCELLENT, hopefully similar deals occur going forward. The negotiations according to Perlman took approx 6 months, but every negotiation is clearly unique so 6 months should not be viewed as a proxy.
4. The company also said they are in talks with numerous potential licensers for their patents but clearly would not provide guidance on this. That being said, from the research we've seen from VRNG24, DTV appears to have the potential to be material given their related revenues as well as numerous other SEP players still out there. All still a positive.
5. One interesting aspect about the $8.9 is that the company has included this FULL amount in proforma cash of $30 mil. Now if this is truly the case and not an oversight in commentary (ie technically when received the company would have $30 mil), then it is possible that the $8.9 million settlement is not even related to the SEP patents. If it were, proforma cash would be $27 million not $30 million as $3 million would be due to Nokia. We will know the answer to this by Q2 as we can look at the cash flow statement at that point. If $3+ million went out, we know it was an SEP related settlement. It will be VERY interesting if this was not related to the SEP/Nokia portfolio because this would suggest we have some pretty material patents in that 600 that none of us are really aware of. Certainly there are many we are not aware of but the materiality side is key. We do know DTV is still ongoing, so it wasn't the DTV patents. Perlman did mention this settlement validated some patents so perhaps it was a hint? Not sure, but I will certainly be interested in the Q2 cash flow statement!
6. Excellent to hear guidance of approximately $15 million in Group Mobile revenues for 2016. The company hopes to see $50 million within 2 years but this may be a bit of hopium. Regardless, given VRNG's insight into future bookings for Group Mobile this is HIGHLY positive.
7. The fact that the company now has multiple revenue streams building and that are material can only be seen has highly positive. It de-risks the company and allows them to continue to enforce patents at the same time.
8. FliCharge launch in June should add some additional revenue for Q2/Q3. It is a very nice product (I certainly know many people who love the form factor and want to buy one), and while not a huge money maker, it should add another decent revenue stream. Management also stated that they are in talks with a number of large tech companies to partner with, let's hope that leads somewhere!
9. While I am not a fan of this management team on how they have compensated themselves to date, this was still a positive quarter, and the outlook looks to be improving materially, which is good to hear.
10. I think if VRNG can put together another strong quarter for Q2 with Group Mobile, a strong launch on Flicharge / announcement of a strong partnership, and hopefully a couple of singles or doubles on the licensing front, the company will start to see its share price start being a bit more reflective of the IP portfolio and its prospects, which appear to be improving.
None of this makes me feel 'great' given my losses, but it does give me a bit more realistic hope that the company is out of the woods and may slowly recoup a decent amount of what I have lost.
That being said, like any company it all depends on execution, but I was certainly surprised at how much headway the company has made in 'righting the ship' in the last 3 months. Thankfully, everything I have mentioned here came right from the conference call and is therefore FACT, just in case some friends try to twist words tomorrow! ;)
Good Luck to all VRNG Longs!
-----------------------------------------------------------
“Everyone listened to this amusing narrative with great interest, and the moment that Behemoth concluded it, they all shouted in unison: 'Lies!” ~ Mikhail Bulgakov
I agree, and I am not suggesting this isn't cheap but reality is its still a complete dice roll.
Thus, if one can determine how much stock is still out there to be sold there may be the ability to load up at lower risk.
Ie, if its trading at 0.02 and a ton of shares out there to be sold still (which did occur), one could surmise it would trade down still, which it did.
Instead of buying 200k shares at .02 = $4000 one could have lowered their exposure by waiting (since this really is a binary all or nothing play), and have paid 0.015 for instance and saved $1000
To me that's just smart investing, especially when it comes to speculative stocks.
I am fortunate enough to not have bought when this was much higher, unlike many here- but I always prefer to pay less than more for a stock!
I don't think anyone who's discussing this is 'upset'. I think some are just trying to judge when to add to their position on the cheap.
Who do you think buys a convertible offering!??!!
lmao !!!!
You pick up that book on basic financial theory yet?