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.
There's big money guys coming into the stock, so keep an eye out for SEC filings. Is there alot of stock being sold into the volume ? Obviously there is, but big money guys don't care, as they're looking at current valuation versus potential valuation. To them, everything else is just noise.
Jackson OWNS the percentage to be awarded for the future running royalty without jury recommendation. That baby is squarely, solely, on his retiring shoulders.
lol....sounds to me like one trying to score some cheapies....I have radar for that and it's pretty good.
TRIBBLE IS NOT IN THIS CATEGORY NOT EVEN REMOTELY CLOSE!!!! YOU EVIDENTLY DO NOT KNOW HIS PERSONALITY NOR HIS REPUTAION!!! COULD NOT DISAGREE MORE!!!!!!
@smitter,
I do not know the answers to my questions; that is why I ask them. Is there a great potential for WDDD? No doubt. Could Max and his team @ SG have uncovered some smoking gun as part of their DD that makes this case a slam dunk? Quite possibly.
But the fact remains that very little is actually known about the details of the case itself. It is simply too early in the process for that. As the case moves thru Markman, then (barring a pre-emptive settlement) thru full-blown discovery and pre-trial motions, more details will come to light.
But for now, the focus is on the Markman, where the claim construction process will be HUGE. Like I said previously, if the Court grants a broad definition/scope, then WDDD is golden. But if for some reason the Court grants only a narrow definition/scope, then WDDD will have a real dogfight on its hands. And how the Court will rule on this claim construction is out of Max's hands, regardless of what his reputation is.
My point is simply that there are still many many unknown variables out there at this time. Again, we have to look no further than VRN$ to see how renowned attorneys working on contingency can breeze thru every step of the trial but get hit out of left field by some curveball thrown by the Court.
@joe,
Thanks for the reply. I suspected that looking into prior art would be a big part of their DD, but I was just curious as to whether their experts would have included software engineers who could take a legitimately purchased copy of the game and reverse engineer into the code that ATVI used. But I guess we don't know the answer to that at this time.
@joe,
Attorneys who agree to take cases on contingency ALWAYS spend significant time performing DD prior to deciding whether to take the case. And there is typically a correlation between the amount of time spent and the extent of the DD vs the amount of potential award and the anticipated complexity/duration of the case.
But to get back to my question, which was triggered by your original post, would you have any details on who this "team of experts" was that SG engaged as part of their DD? This can also tell us a lot.
Everyone should realize that Susman Godfrey didn't spend 9 months with an expert team executing DD on Worlds' case before deciding to take it on a contingency if they thought they weren't going to make huge $$$$$.
In the interests of clarifying this issue, here is a quote directly from princetonattorney44 in the comment section of his article:
We've got a long road ahead and the first step is clearing the Markman hearing. I agree with much of what you believe. Like many that are following this stock I am also long and intend on adding to my position. Its amazing that a Federal Judge has the power to transform Worlds (WDDD) with just one order. David can beat Goliath.
There's institutional money flowing into the stock now. Proof ? Absolutely none .... other than basic common sense. Watch for SEC filings. No way this volume remains elevated day after day without participation from a tute(s), period.
I know that investors are fatigued, but the time that JJ is taking to issue his post-trial rulings are not that out of line. As much as investors believe that all the issues are "clear cut", once we remove the rose-colored lenses that our confirmation bias subconsciously puts in front of our eyes, it is fairly clear that there are a LOT of very COMPLEX issues at stake here.
Yes, some of them are legit, and others may be more "form over substance", but the fact that virtually every single motion relates in some way to another motion makes this incredibly difficult to rule on. It would be completely different if the issues raised in each motion stood alone and could be easily silo'd apart from each other.
In our case, the easiest way to think about is is to picture a Venn diagram (remember those?!?) with numerous intersecting circles. JJ needs to make sure that a ruling on motion A does not create unintended issues or conflict with precedents in motions B, C, D, and E. Any ruling that may work for B, C, and D but creates conflict with E won't fly (with the same logic applying to how he handles all the motions).
Just thinking about things logically, I personally do not envy JJ right now. There is truly a LOT that he has to balance together in arriving at a ruling that consistently reflects the law as well as prior precedents across all the motions taken as a whole. He will need to be very creative and I would not be surprised one bit if -- given the complexities of this case and the convergence of a slew of outlier type of issues that arose in this case -- JJ ends up being a trailblazer and his ruling here will end up setting a new precedent that future cases may refer to.
JMHO...
Legal process question
IF we are in a "stalemate" predicament (judge is wanting-waiting on a settlement, but G and V are waiting on a judgement) is the court bound by any timeline, or can this go on forever?
The one thing that VRNG holds is the card.. that they can go after every single one of GOOGLES clients that uses the ad software.
Personally, I am realistically expecting 5%-7% of 30% of GOOG's revenues as evidence (slideshow) was shown the patents created an instant 20% boost in GOOG's revenues when they first utilized them, and that the number is more along the lines of 40% as of current. This was the only evidence given at trial by VRGN.
If it was anything lower, GOOG would have proffered their own evidence showing a lower revenue #%. Since they did not, this concludes the revenue gain realized by the VRNG patents was more than 40%. Also, GOOG is now a willful infringer, and have been for the past four months.
Well I didn't get my .60 by the end of the month, only due to no short cover yet. Next week ? They get whacked upside the head. That Seeking Alpha article I read on this board yesterday should clue you in. Last week's volume wasn't a bunch of small-time IHUB players.
Sure, when and at what price people sell is a personal choice based upon individual objectives, risk profiles, etc.
However, what is important is that people base their valuation models on accurate information. And if the investor sentiment on this board is similar to other VRNG boards, then what I suspect is that many investors may be assigning an undue amount of premium to the value of any other GOOG clients who may be exposed to lawsuits should GOOG not settle.
Based on the analysis I have performed, the information currently available actually lends credence to the theory that this is nothing more than a red herring for investors and that the real value of any potential suits related to other GOOG clients is in reality rather negligible.
@Soldier,
LOL. I'm too cheap to pay for a subscription here, so can't PM you back, sorry...
You have a lot of major assumptions built into this theory. Just for starters, you are assuming that there is actually significant value to be had from these other GOOG clients.
I saw someone post that there is VRNG with no other GOOG customer lawsuits which is much bigger than just a regular GOOG win.
As Chris Rock would say:
That's mean as hell -- but funny as sh1t!!!
Really? I thought you were!!! Your posts have always seemed so well-thought out in explaining protocol/procedure that, to me, clearly seemed to involve a more advanced understanding than the average layman!
Well, if you aren't an attorney, then I see no further need to hold back on lawyer jokes here!!!
Boy, JJ, if you -- an actual attorney -- would have lost that little sidebar with ivebeenhad, you would have had to change your handle to "ivebeenhadbyivebeenhad"...
Summer of what year? LOL...
No one knows other than JJ. All we know is that per 860, he stated that he would determine a new briefing schedule for 822 "after the Court completes its consideration of the other relevant post-trial motions". So it all depends on which of the remaining outstanding motions JJ would deem "relevant" to 822, and when those get ruled on.
In looking at the motions that are still awaiting ruling, I would venture to guess that 792, 825, and 833 (since these 3 involve either past damages, supplemental damages, and interest -- all of which involve a RR and base) would be relevant and 809, 820, and 831 are not relevant (as these relate to Bill of Costs, Invalidity, and Infringement).
Just my $.02 FWIW...
@Nolerman,
Thanks for the PM. Good info. I'm too cheap to pay for a subscription here so no-can-do on PM'ing you back...
Insiders sell for all sorts of reasons. History is riddled with them. To speak in absolutes is naive. All that is being discussed is the fact that once $4.25 is reached, the locks come off the doors. No one is saying that insiders will begin dumping the moment the sp hits $4.25. But if you don't think that there will be any selling between the $5-$6 levels if and when the pop hits those levels, just sit back and wait for the Form 4's. No one is trying to tell you to do anything here. Only trying to discuss possibilities.
Blackout periods only apply to pre-event trading based upon info that is not yet in the public space.
What Dolphinsmike is hinting at (correct me if I am misunderstanding you, Mike) is that once news of JJ's rulings hit, then -- assuming the rulings are favorable to VRNG and we see the beginning of the widely anticipated "pop" in the sp -- insiders will begin dumping shares once the sp eclipses the $4.25 barrier, which would obviously be bad both with regards to the short-term dampening of the pop, but also with regards to the message it sends as to its own faith in the long-term prospects of VRNG.
I know that Nolerman mentioned in a prior post today that he believed that sales were restricted to 4k shares per week based on certain sp levels, but I have never heard of that before and my read of VRNG's Employee Benefit Plan on EDGAR shows no indication of any such restrictions.
So based on your understanding of the terms and conditions of their plan, would it be fair to say that after JJ issues what we anticipate will be favorable rulings for VRNG, that should any ensuing pop be underwhelming, that it won't be because of insider selling due to the small quantities that they are each permitted to sell each week?
@Nolerman,
I've never personally seen the details of their 10b5-1 plan. Are you certain about this? If so, would you know what the tier-scale is for what sp levels would enable them to sell larger blocks?
TIA
We can hypothecate all we want, but it is irrelevant to a shareholder who is in for "the pop" that many believe will come once JJ begins issuing his post-trial rulings. If insiders do sell, we won't know it for 2 days anyways when the Form 4's are required to be filed -- and by that time this info is stale and inactionable for us.
We will only know after the fact if: (1) The pop was underwhelming, and (2) We see in the Form 4's that insiders dumped tons of shares once the sp passed $4.35. Only then will we be able to see a possible causal link connecting the insider sales to the suppression of the sp.
Again, even knowing this 2 days later does not help us with regards to earning the gains that we may have thought would be earned from the pop -- BUT it would speak volumes about what insiders think about their own future prospects... ...which should cause all longs who believed in the long-term prospects of VRNG to take a step back and re-evaluate things.
Remember, don't fall in love with a stock. As circumstances change and new factual info becomes available, investors need to re-examine their investments -- and insiders dumping tons of stock around anywhere between $4.35-$6.00 is very significant factual news, should it occur.
JMO...
my guess week 3 will provide us with an official verdict.
Good morning, Red,
I had actually elaborated on this issue in more detail on another forum last night, where I had stated the following additional points:
SEPARATE from this issue, though, is the doctrine of manifest injustice due to clerical error. But that is unrelated to this AAPL decision as this AAPL decision is based upon the premise that the jury intentionally came up with the damages number and stands behind it, but that the judge believes that it is either too high or too low (if too high, the judge can intervene directly via invoking the doctrine of remittitur; if too low, additur is prohibited, so the judge can order a new trial just on damages). In cases related to clerical error (which is NOT the issue being raised in the AAPL case), the judge believes that the jury flat out made a mistake and did not intend for this number to be "the number".
So, yes, VRNG does have two horses in this race. We clearly saw that they hinted of a transpositional error, and are hoping that JJ concurs that the jury screwed the pooch on their math (i.e. they made a mistake and did not intend for the verdict to be for only $30M). And, by filing 825, VRNG is covering their bases by saying that "OK, JJ, if you don't think there was a clerical error, then grant a new trial based on the argument that the verdict is not supported by the weight of the evidence" (i.e. the jury did intend for this $30M but that JJ should recognize that it is either too high or too low -- ala the AAPL/Samsung case).
At least that is my read on it, so it is JMO...
Here is a link to the actual Court Order re: this ruling by Judge Koh:
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/apple20130301.pdf
In it, she states the following:
"When a Court detects an error in the jury’s damages verdict, the Court has two choices: the
Court may order a new trial on damages, or the Court may reduce the award to a supportable
amount."
If you read what the judge said, there were ONLY two options, not three:
(1) Order a new trial on damages (which is what VRNG has motioned for via 825)
(2) Reduce the award to a supportable amount.
Notice there is no option (3) to increase the jury award. And, no, it is not because she is specifically referring to the current AAPL-Samsung case where she imposed the doctrine of remittitur (the reduction of a jury award). It is because the doctrine of additur (the increasing of -- or adding to -- a jury award) is prohibited in US federal courts (some states permit it, but no federal) per the precedent case Dimick vs. Schiedt, 293 U.S. 474 (1935).
This is not news and certainly not anything that JJ is not already aware of. As stated above, the only avenue under the particular circumstances described in this article that VRNG can pursue is the new trial focused specifically on damages, which it has per 825.
Hope this helps...
@joenatural,
Is the reason why you feel next week will be a "kaboom" week the same reason you had previously posted that the sp would hit .60 by the end of FEB? If so, is there a specific significant event you are anticipating that simply got delayed?
Or is it simply the case that the reason for the ".60 by end of FEB" just didn't materialize, but now there is another reason behind your hunch for this next week?
TIA...
I agree with this assessment. This is not a new motion, so there is no additional briefing that has to be scheduled or anything like that.
Given how fresh this ruling was, this precedent case is clearly not in any law library yet, so VRNG is just "helping" JJ by offering up one more precedent case for him to consider.
Life: Yes
Intelligent Life: TBD
New PACER - Docket 899
http://www.scribd.com/doc/127872015/IP-Engine-Inc-v-AOL-Inc-Et-899
Looks like VRNG is introducing the recent VHC decision to support their opposition to GOOG's JMOL re: past damages...
I honestly don't think JA's comments mean anything in the sense that there are no tea leaves to be read there.
He is an outsider just like us and everyone else now, and only JJ (and I don't mean Seabrook!) knows what's happening next and when it will occur.
I truly don't think JA cares all that much about what happens to VRNG at this point, especially from a monetary standpoint. In reading his comments as time progressed from last year thru now, the vibe I get is that his primary focal point that he consistently circles back to is twofold:
(1)
VRNG's patents were validated by a jury in a court of law and deemed to have been infringed on all claims by GOOG.
(2)
VRNG's sp has jumped significantly, even using today's valuation, since he initially recommended it when it was sub-$2. Of course, depending on whether JJ throws any more curveballs out of left field, I would argue that JA shouldn't necessarily be making any claims of success on this point just yet.
But this is JMHO...
On behalf of many here, please accept our condolences, JJ...
...oh, and go VRNG! (gotta reference the stock so they won't delete the post due to it being OT!!!)
@CBStock,
I'm fairly certain that the algos that are being referenced as being changed are related to how the ads now have to be recognized in some way in order for this "single source" to know whether to target it to a desktop, phone, or tablet, whereas before each device had its own unique source of data feeding into it.
With 420/664 resulting in 20-40% additional revenues, I'm also fairly certain that GOOG will NOT discard the goose that is laying their golden egg -- let alone do it voluntarily AND pre-emptively in advance of any court ruling.
JMO though...