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.
Ouch. This thing has been sliding since the 17th.
"Who is Max "Treble"?"
Come on Cooler! You don't know who Max "Treble" damages is? I give you too much credit . Hey I understand your point, I have learned just a little bit from the VRNG experience and know how to play this time around. I do love the potential here though!
Agree its very hard to estimate the total "reward" without getting some answers first. But don't you think PPS would be higher, even much higher, if the masses knew the amounts could easily go well into the billions in 18-24 months? Of course that is a very good scenario and one of dozen possible scenarios that may play out. But I think the average Joe who even knows about Worlds hasn't a clue that the "reward" could be over more than a few hundred million. A bet on $300M is worth less than the same bet on $2B.
I would be willing to bet that S & G along with Max Treble after 20 months of studying the prior art and talking with expert witnesses would agree with art. My money is on them!
Today's 8-K was nothing but shareholder friendly news. Very thankful for the drop and a bunch of us grabbed quite a few shares. If warrant holders decide to take the deal, there will be fewer outstanding shares and less pressure on the stock.
The jury verdict IMPLIES 2.09%, which is what GOOG will argue was NOT a decimal error, but their assessment of the correct amount. I will be VERY surprised if GOOG does not push for the lower figure, using G-P ruling guidelines of "starting with the jury verdict to guide future RR".
If the goog case was a bust, Mgmt would not waste expenses to uplist to the Nasdaq. Most people are over-thinking the case, when in reality we have no effect.
Understood. It is possible, and how many percentage of that have been exercised since you've known?
2.09% wasn't mentioned during the trial. 20.9% was. That's the number he has to use. Am i right?
HERE IS THE KICKER---I REALLY BELIEVE SHE WILL BE WITH A COMPANY FOR A SHORT TIME WITH PENDING OF M&A RIGHT NOW, AND WHEN THIS COMPLETED THEN SHE WILL LEAVE:
• The Offer Letter provides that Ms. Nyrkovskaya's employment with the Company is at will. Her employment relationship with the Company may be terminated at any time, with or without cause and without any prior notice, by either Ms. Nyrkovskaya or the Company.
Aw, c'mon Nolerman -- what could possibly go wrong???
Sure hope the DSS/Lexington merger announcement doesn't come at the same time as W's next leg up nor on the same day as V's 822 ruling... ...would be nice to have them hit in sequence in order for investors to roll funds from one to the next to the next...
Nolerman's behind it! Nuf said!
I presume the horse is now dead..sent to the knacker.......hopefully.....
The question that XLT raises that I assume has been addressed by res judicata is....does the situation change because MSFT is NOT an NPE and VRNG (despite their protestations) IS an NPE?? I dont' think so, and sharper legal minds than I on this board have opined "no, it does not change"..... so, I am assuming that res judicata covers this question as well.
They moved it to .45 and now it's gone, shaking here IMO
Thanks for clarifying, JJ. The primary point still remains that any attempt by MSFT or anyone else to acquire the patents or buyout VRNG, and then springboard this acquisition into a claim of willfulness against GOOG is not going to happen. Possibly in a bizarro-world in some parallel dimension, but certainly not our world.
Would you like to cite case law or is it just your opinion?
in the announcement it says that she remains with the company in charge or reporting and maintaining all legal aspects of reporting.
2) Calculating US revenue. From my previous experience, which granted is limited in this area, Canada revenue is more like a large state, and Mexico is half of that. If 90% is to high I would be shocked that its lower than 80%, but mine was just a guesstimate.
With no negative catalyst on the horizon leading up to the Markman, the only logical explanation is that it may be investors who are taking profits either to de-risk or to simply go play in another sandbox for a while because they are gambling that WDDD's next leg up won't be imminent and that they can put their $$$ to more productive use trading it elsewhere until then. But, of course, with thinly traded pennies like WDDD, the runs are unpredictable and don't require much stimulus in order to really take off, so it's defintely a gamble to be trading now...
? for CBStocks or anyone else who knows:
In your review of the patents, including their history, are you able to gather whether the patents are related to the overall "idea/concept/method" of 3-D virtual inter-connectivity via avatars... ...or are the patents specifically describing just one specific way of "constructing" such a 3-D virtual inter-connection via avatars?
Not a techie here, so I may not be using the correct terminology in my description above, but the reason the disctinction may be useful is because if it is the latter, then this siginficantly increases the possibility that a potential workaround may be devised -- or that ATVI may be able to demostrate thru their code that they are NOT constructing their MMORPG environments the same way that WDDD's patents are describing.
TIA.
Appreciate all the time that must have gone into this analysis, Spanky.
Now, let's smooth out the rough edges:
(1)
35 U.S.C. § 286 limits the amount of past damages to 6 years prior to the filing date of the suit, so you will need to jettison some of the historical revenues. But, as you know, with a product that has experienced continual growth, not all years are created equally and so the oldest years that get dropped are the least valuable anyways.
But on the flip-side, didn't Kidrin publicly state recently as part of his Joe N interview that the patents have 7 more years of life? If so, why did you stop at 2017?
(2)
I think 90% is way too high as the estimate of what US revenues contribute to ATVI's total revenues. ATVI does not break this info out, so folks like us need to dumpster dive into all sorts of filthy places to pick up scraps of info on this and attempt to piece things together. But from the back-o-the-napkin calcs and research that I had been able to dig up a while back, I actually came up with closer to 50%.
(3)
Do we know for sure that 100% of ATVI's titles utilize MMORPG? I'm not a gamer myself so I don't have personal experience as a consumer in following ATVI's various product lines. It's possible, but I just have no idea, and assuming 100% of anything is always a recipe for a letdown as you leave zero margin for error and the only possible deviation is downward.
That being said, no one actually knows which titles will ultimately be asserted to be infringing -- and ergo, how much of ATVI's total US revenues are up for grabs -- until after the Markman. The key will be the definitions that will be permitted to be argued. If, during the claim construction, the Court rules that claim terms are to be very narrowly defined, then our grand investing plan becomes at risk of becoming FUBAR; however, if the Court grants a broad definition to the claim terms, then Max will then assess the scope of ATVI's infringement based on the agreed-upon definitions and identify other potentially infringing titles -- such as perhaps the new and wildly successful Diablo franchise, among others.
(4)
The inclusion of "the rest of the MMORPG industry" is really a longer-term catalyst, but certainly a legitimate one for those willing to hold for the next 18-24 months. But even still, it is important to distinguish US vs non-US revenues for the rest of the industry as well.
(5)
Keep in mind that the actual awarding of treble damages is EXTREMELY rare. As of now, all we know is that WDDD has claimed willfulness. This is key as it opens the door to potential trebling. However, even if the Court finds that ATVI indeed infringed willfully, there are many many remedies available to the Court to address this, with the enhancement of monetary damages being just one of many such remedies. And even if enhancement is the route selected by the Court, the enhancement can be anywhere from .1x all the way to the full 3x. The majority of the time that enhancement is awarded, the enhancement is NOT the full trebling. So keep this in mind in setting expectations.
(6)
Also keep in mind that the most likely outcome is a settlement, and that it is unlikely to the n-th degree that ATVI would ever pay and WDDD would ever receive full future royalties in these amounts, even if WDDD emerged victorious from trial 12 months from now. And settlement means discount.
(7)
All in all, should WDDD prevail thru all this and successfully collects from ATVI and other large infringers in the MMORPG space, then, as I said previously, I would be supremely disappointed if the resulting sp was only in the $5-$6 range. However, it is important for investors to understand that this outcome is a LONG-TERM outcome that involves many hurdles and several catalysts. It is no slam dunk. The upcoming Markman is merely the first of these potential catalysts.
Thanks again for your efforts and sharing your analysis, Spanky.
There's another scenario you didnt address....what if these law firms have a formula and can calculate how much in legal expenses they will have at various stages of a lawsuit. Maybe they looked and said we think we can get a $20 million dollar settlement and only spend $2 million. We get $7 million as our cut of the settlement, only spend $2 mil and clear an easy $5 million. The problem with that plan is, WDDD market cap is right around $40 million, they need a huge settlement to support the stock price. What WDDD investors want and what SG has planned might not be the same.
total damages of $1B-$1.2B (after getting $ from all possible sources) could easily end up with $5+ PPS after all fees and costs
LOL, start sharing this on all the MB's that you can find!!! :)
What odds do you give of a $1 pre-markman ? I'd be as happy as a clam with a 400% gain.
Caution is always good but worry is not, at least not now.
Does anyone know of a case when a world class IP litigation team (such as S&G) took on someone 100% on contingency and lost outright? I assume its happened but I would think that the winning % for this setup is extremely high for our type of scenario.
I think once they dispose becker...
Now that we had this breakout and we enter uncharted territory.... where does the resistance hit? At one point do the shorts try in full force to bring this back down?
MSFT Answer date got set back to June. ZTE Response isn't due yet in France. Therefore, they're awaiting both that Answer and Response.
As we know, the MSFT Answer date got set back pending settlement discussions. The ZTE France Response isn't procedurally due yet.
It should be the link in post # 31514 by xltleader
Thanks Red!
I agree, xlt. Speaking solely for myselfg, that 25-page report/analysis was actually quite eye-opening for me as I had not been previously aware of the EXTENT that this practice of enhancing post-judgment RR's was utilized. I was aware of the principle involved and that it was done, but this report/analysis was very encouraging to read.
Let's hope that the HJJ doesn't feel the urge to go against the grain!
Question for JJ, bsav88atty, or RedAngus,
Are post-trial declarations made for the purpose of supporting a post-trial motion considered part of the official record of "evidence/testimony that is proffered during trial"?
Reason I ask is that in the current discussions that have been going on re: the merits of JJ awarding VRNG a RR higher than 3.5%, many (including princetonATTY44 aka PatentPlays on SA) have pointed to Dr. Becker's declarations in support of 822 (included in 823 and dated 12/18/12) that a reasonable post-judgment RR should be 5% as enough support to conclude that the HJJ should/will award a RR of 5% at the minimum, with the only issue being whether it will be enhanced to 7%.
Although Becker's declarations are quite compelling, I would feel a lot better about things if his declaration -- which was made only at the behest of VRNG in order to support their 822 motion -- was officially part of the evidence/testimony related to the case, especially considering that the HJJ's statement at the end of the trial clearly stated that the Court would likely use the damages theory contained within the evidence/testimony proferred during the trial.
Am I unnecessarily getting hung up on the words "during the trial"?
Once again, much thanks to each and all of you for the invaluable legal insights that you have provided to the board over the past many many months!
Yes sir, dust off that spacesuit! Tuesday or Wednesday of next week people will be chasing upwards. I am hoping to be able to pick up more shares by Monday. I don't believe it will be anywhere near the high we will get by the end of the year. But I expect over $4 by next Wednesday.
@xlt,
So, let me see if i'm getting the picture you are saying now:
(1)
You are not describing the major shorts (i.e. the bulk of the 15.9 current short interest), but simply the smaller groups of shorts (albeit still substantial enough in size to be able to do this).
(2)
These shorts buy long positions either when the sp dips or when it is stagnant, but the quantities are much less than their overall short positions, but still significant enough to enable them to show up on the ask suddenly with enough shares to cover any large bid blocks that may come up.
(3)
These shorts will put in their sell orders with ask prices of a penny above the bid to either discourage the buy from occurring, or if it does, to smother all the buys with their ask prices to prevent a runup that would otherwise have occured as higher and higher asks get hit in order to satisfy the quantities that are trying to get bought.
(4)
You are observing this type of pattern (i.e. whenever a large bid shows up, it is very quickly followed by an ask at one penny higher that is of a block large enough to absorb the buy block) play out frequently enough both intraday and EOD to conclude that it is unlikely to be mere coincidence.
Would this be a reasonably accurate synopsis of your theory of how the sp has been and continues to be controlled/manipulated by the shorts?
@mshanley,
Yes, this is what I'm trying to wrap my head around w/respect to xlt's explanation. Intuitively, it does not make sense to me for several reasons, one of which is what you are alluding to, which is a non-sensical strategy that is akin to betting both black and red on roulette and (assuming the green zero doesn't come up) getting a net zero out of it, but slowly bleeding the vig.
But I don't know if it doesn't make sense because it is truly non-sensical or because I, as a non-shorter, simply am not seeing all the angles to this.
So, I'm still open to hearing what xlt (or anyone else who understands the topic) has to say.
Thanks for your input, though!
@xlt,
Appreciate the "Shorting 101" lesson here. So, before moving on, let's make sure that I at least understand what you are saying thus far:
Those who own the ~16M short positions (or at least own a decent chunk of it) have hedged their positions by acquiring long positions in the common stock as well. Or they have always been long but decided to also short it once the laches and jury debacle hit the news.
Either way, the point is that they now hold both long and short positions, correct? If so, then what you are alluding to is that to protect their short positions, they are strategically dumping just enough of their long shares whenever they see large bids in order to suppress any buying pressure that may build up?
So, under your theory, whenever the sp dips (or even when the sp is stagnant), it is these same shorts who are buying up the shares being sold by frustrated longs, day traders, whoever, to "re-load" their long positions in order to keep repeating the above scenario?
If so, it seems that you are suggesting that they are willing to sacrifice potential gains on their long positions (by dumping shares when they see large bids) simpy to protect their short positions?
Am I understanding you correctly so far?
TIA...