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.
Check List for all:
USPTO's Patent validation: Check
Workaround: Check
RR: Still waiting.
Good News for Long Term Holder -- Long term capital gain tax is lower than the short term rate.
It all depends on the RR. My guess is the lower limit on the RR is 3.5%, and the upper limit on the RR is 7%.
Google's Next Move: Appeal Judge Jackson's WA ruling, and demand a jury trial to decise on the WA.
Today's settlement discussion is all about the RR, and nothing else.
Stock will move higher with heavy short covering, and much much higher if there is a short squeeze.
With 20M short shares outstanding, long shold hold on to the shares.
It is possible that shorts want to wait after the official announcement of the RR before decide to cover.
Royalty Rate is the MAIN topic of today's settlement discussion.
Bottom RR is 3.5%, and top RR is 7%. What RR will Vringo offer ot Google, and what is Google's counter offer.
My feeling is Judge Jackson will decide the RR because Google will not accept's Vringo 4.5% - 5.0% RR offer.
Many thanks to both JJ.
The Timimg of JJ's Descison on the WA is Intentional to put pressure on Google in the settlement discussion.
The announcement of WA on the date of the settlement conference is deliberated to put pressure on Google.
Congratulations to everyone, including my ex-daughter-in-law Newbie.
The RR verdict will come AFTER the WA verdict.
In Judge Jackson prior ruling (don't remember the Pacer doc #), he defered the RR for future damage pending the resolution of the workaround. He used the term "court efficiency" (or "court economy" I don't rember the exact terminory) as the reason for the deferment of the RR. On this basis, most likely the RR verdict will come AFTER the WA verdict.
It is also possible that JJ first determine the validity/invalidity of the WA, and then assign a RR, and announce his ruling on both of these issues at the same time in a signle court document.
And tax payer money.
IMO, JJ erred on laches on the procedure ground.
Also, I recalled that Google did an outstanding job in its submittal to JJ regarding laches during post-trial. In its response, Google detailed point-by-point, and numerous sequence of events leading to JJ latches ruling.
Actually the workaround should be the mover because it would have much bigger impact to the total amount that Vring can collect and has a much bigger uncertainty factor. RR on the hand has far less uncertainty factor and is pretty much anticipated between 3.5% - 7%.
The Court first direct both sides to determine the RR via a settlement order, and also direct both sides to arrange a settlement meeting/conference if they cannot agree to an RR number.
Are you telling me that the Court told Vringo and Google that if they cannot agree on a single issue of RR, then they must get together to find an agreement for the whole enchilida? This doesn't make sense to me.
If the main focus of the court imposed settlement is about the RR then the w/a resolution is irrelevant. But if both parties wants to take the w/a issue into consideration, both sides can come up with a conditional clause to cover the w/a issue. For example:
1. Without a workaround:Vring would give Google a 0.5% discount from a X.xx% RR due to higher total revenue. And in exchange for a 0.5% discount, Google will give Vringo two cows and three chickens.
2. With a workaround:Google will not receive a discount to the negotiated X.xx% RR due to the lower overall revenue.
(I think discounting due to high volume is common in the wholesale/retail trade. For example, Wal-Mart and McDonals can demand lower prices from its suppliers due to its high volume purchase).
1061 appears to be an "boilerplate" order for the 1/22 meeting, but 963 specifically called out RR negotiation.
Excerpt from 963:
"...To this end, within FIVE (5) days of completing the aforementioned discovery and briefing schedule, the Court ORDERS the parties to meet and to negotiate an appropriate ongoing royalty rate (bold text empahsized by commneter napkinbie), using 20.9% of U.S. AdWords revenues as the appropriate royalty base. If the parties are unable to come to an agreement,the Court FURTHER ORDERS the parties to schedule a settlement conference with the United States Magistrate Judge assigned to this case no later than December 1, 2013."
As I've stated previouly, they can discuss anything during the negotiation, and negotiators can come up with any creative horse trading ideas, but the main focus of the court mandated "settlement" is to negotiate the ongoing RR.
It makes perfect sense to me for the Court to let or order both sides to come up with the RR on their own, and the court will then intervene ONLY if both sides cannot come to an RR agreement (I think it is very important for Vringo to impress the Court that it had acted in good faith and being fair and reasonable in its RR licensing term or RR negotiation).
Most of you read the Court Settlement order WRONG.
Judge Jackson (as well as many other district judges in recent cases) have stressed the importance of allowing the parties the time and opportunity to settle. In order for the parties to settle, it would be crucial to know whether the "New Adwords" is continuing to infringe. Therefor, I believe Judge Jackson will issue a ruling regarding the "colorable difference" issue before the settlement conference on Jan 22nd 2014.
Court finds Defendants' calculation overly speculative
and therefore inappropriate to rely upon.
I think the 20.9% base is firm. For future damage, the 3.5% rr is a starting point and could be higher depending on Vringo's and Google's argunments and the Court's "mood"
The Court has carefully considered the parties' pleadings and finds it appropriate to enter judgments of supplemental damages and prejudgment interest, and to defer a ruling on
post-judgment interest.
Court finds Defendants' calculation overly speculative
and therefore inappropriate to rely upon.
Whay Happened? News Leak? PACER doc? Settlement?
The Calling of Indelendent Expert Witness is Simply a Defensive Move by the Court
IMO, after reviewing Vringo's and Google's responses on the workaround, JJ's inclination is the workaround still infringes. And because Google's denmand for a trial-by-jury, JJ then reacted by asking both sides to provide the Court a list of independent expert witness (if JJ believes that the workaround does not infringe, then there is no fear of a workaround appeal by Vringo. Right?). I think JJ calling for the independent witness is a simple act of "crossing the i's and dotting the t's" because of Google's demand for a trial-by-jury.
We all can speculate why JJ suddenly wanted independent expert witnesses on standby. From my perspective, Google's demand a trial-by-jury rageading the workaround had forced JJ to call for independent expert witnesses (on standby basis) as a defensive posture in the anticipation of Google's appeal on the workaround in the event that JJ (or the Court) rules in favor of Vringo. The independent expert witnesses, whether they are used by the JJ or not, will give a good impression to the CAFC that JJ is not reckless in his determination of the workaround issue.
While we agree that there won't be a settlement, but we don't see eyes-to-eyes on the reason why the settlement won't happen.
IMO, the reason Google is fighting the battle to the bitter end has NOTHING do do with the principle of "standing up" to all NPEs.
IMO, JJ DESPERATELY wants both side to settle, and if he were to deliver his ultimate ruling before the Jan 22 settlement conference date, then there is no INCENTIVE for the "winning" side to settle.
Why would Google want to settle if it is confident that its liability is limited to only $200M? Why would Vringo want to settle if it is confident that its compensation is $1.5B or higher?
The UNKNOWN factors surrounding the workaround validity and royalty rate are the motivation for both side to play chess with each other. For this reason, don't expect a ruling from JJ anytime before the Jan 22 settlement conference date.
No, it is NOT impossible.
Why would Google want to settle if it is confident that its liability is limited to only $200M? Why would Vringo want to settle if it is confident that its compensation is $1.5B or higher?
The UNKNOWN factor surrounding the workaround validity royalty rate are the motivation for both side to play chess with each other. For this reason, don't expect a ruling from JJ anytime before the Jan 22 settlement conference date.
No Ruling from the Court Before 1/22/14 is a Near Certainty
If JJ is not too busy, he should be able to evaluate RR and the workaround issue, and he may decide that the independent expert witness(es) is needed to help him in deciding the WA issue. It is possible the JJ had already made up his mind about the RR and the WA issue (with or w/o help from expert witness), and have to wait after 1/22/14 to announce his ruling if there is no settlement.
I have a question for all: If JJ determines that independent expert witness(es) is need, does he (or the Court) have the obligation/policy (for transparency reason) to let the public know of the name of the expert witness during the WA evaluation period?
No Ruling from the Court Before 1/22/14 is a Near Certainty
If JJ is not too busy, he should be able to evaluate RR the workaround issue, and he may decide that the independent expert witness(es) is needed to help him in deciding the WA issue. It is possible the JJ had already made up his mind about the RR and the WA issue (with or w/o help from expert witness), and have to wait after 1/22/14 to announce his ruling if there is no settlement.
I have a question for all: If JJ determines that independent expert witness(es) is need, does he (or the Court) have the obligation/policy (for transparency reason) to let the public know of the name of the expert witness during the WA evaluation period?
I think you misunderstood me. I purposedly to not answer your questions for a reason, and I purposedly used the term "newbie" in my reply so that I can slip in the "ex-daughter-in-law" term.
You sound like a newbie (no, not Newbie, my ex-daughther-in-law).
I for one was not confused by Red's comment because I figured he meant the price would get beat down by short selling after a pop
When you initially short a stock there is no specific time you have to cover the short.
Here is one exapmle, well, let's call it a hypothical example:
JJ rules in favor Vringo, and for whatever reason, a huge number of long shareholders want to take immediate profit and decide to sell, let's say the total number of shares to be sold within hours or several days of JJ's ruling is 100 million shares (exaggeration for demonstration purpose), and the majority of these 100 million shares were loaned out. How or where the borkers can locate the "replacement" shares to the tune of 100 million shares?
It is plausable that JJ's calling for the independent experts is a "pawn" to put pressure both side to come to term. But I have totally different theory on why he called for the independent experts.
Why JJ Had Called for Independent Experts.
Agree, but there are time that replacement stocks are not available. And when replacement stocks are not available, and there is a huge demand for returning of the "borrowed" shares, then short squeeze will happen.
Why JJ Had Showed a Strong Desire for a Settlement.
The laches ruling and the subsequent jury error are the major appeal issues, and IMO, JJ's reputation or legacy hinges on this case to a great extend because of his decision on laches. It is my opinion that JJ senses that his laches ruling is a reversable error, and an error that either directly or indirectly confused the jury, which in turned resulted in a error to the tune of several hundred of millions of dollar, plus another several hundred of millions of dollar on laches.
For the forgoing reason, JJ had showed a strong desire for a settlement because the settlement will somehow erase the laches and jury error issue, and consequently, history will not remember JJ as the Judge who erred on the laches, and either indiredtly or directly confused the jury (it is also my opinion that Vringo's legal team is also responsible for its mishandling of laches).
There also is no required time to cover a short position.
Call your broker, they will try and explain it to you.
Simply ask them if you short a stock.....is there a time limit that you have to cover your short position?
I guarantee you the answer will be.....no.
Form 10-Q for WORLDS INC (19-Nov-2013)
http://biz.yahoo.com/e/131119/wddd10-q.html