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.
Lol - I've explained all this in the past to you
a lot of errors in your analysis go back to previous posts to review - perhaps you've forgotten the points in your suggestion I proved incorrect in the past!
Good luck!
Hey look at the wddd stock price! Still at three cents! Unfortunately for those trying to buy lower it's not moving down much hey?
Your tape recorder is stuck in a loop Louis
You seem to be repeating over and over and over and over
Is there a reason you keep repeating the same point?
Lol! Sorry wrong again!! As I said prior (it seems i to have to repeat over and over and it is ignored), the fact one is unable to diligence wddd correctly is not my or others responsibility, it is the responsibility of the one looking at wddd. We are happy to guide to facts and correct errors but not interested in spoonfeeding!
That being said, facts dont matter to some!! And they may be choosing not to actually diligence! Why? Who knows?!
Remember this post from Lao??! Lol!!
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ma-supreme-judicial-court/1270190.html
Incredible commentary in there from the judges!!!
I think it's best for you to Learn to search for your own diligence! A lesson that will serve you well!
And as a side note, most of us here have no desire or need ton convince anyone of anything, but rather we prefer to have the sharing of FACTUAL information, not misinformation, selective information, etc.
Good luck with the law tribunal!
Yes, 100% correct. I didn't bother explaining further given the "background" .
Facts do matter to most, and indeed the date of the IPR proceedings (prior) to the markman had a material impact- which I mentioned prior but it was ignored "as per usual".
I assume an IPR institution doesn't have an effect on stock prices either to some ! Lol
Oh and to cut that off before it starts; Hedge funds actually file IPRs and short stocks to make money - see VHC as a recent example.
I have mentioned this whole discussion in the past thus the reason I didn't even bother - some choose to ignore factual information I guess!
I suggest you reread my post over and over
PTAB point was quite critical in my comment
Choose to believe as you please as I said
Circular comments are pointless
I see fair enough. I don't dispute its a risk, but the key here is one of many quotes used in the two step analysis such as this
"The claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in computer networks" ~ ddr case
Key is "improvement in technology" in the 2 part test. For Wddd this is an easy hurdle.
Another quote
"Any specialtized software program or algorithm disclosed and claims that can be characterized as improving the functioning of the computer helps the 'significantly more" inquiry of 101 step 2"
In my view WDDD is not at risk w 101 / Alice
Actually the markman isn't really incorporated as the ptab has killed "future expectations" upon which stock prices tend to be evaluated on.
Until the ptab has ruled (assuming in favor) it won't be reflected.
If you believe otherwise your choice.
101 won't apply here too bad for those who hope to buy in late!
No risk no reward!
Suggest you read about the 2 part test now required an apply it here
Those with experience in this sector can see why it won't hold water!
I'm curious, where did you see such data in Phillips v BRI rulings / outcomes? Do you have a link to this study?
I think reading up on 101 and recent rulings is necessary
Those who are in this space recognize 101 has no bearing here. I would suggest you speak w a patent lawyer or even kidrin if you believe this.
There is a reason it wasn't brought up in Bungies arguments, they didn't have to wait for a MSJ to make such an argument. I'm surprised this wasn't self evident.
I am seeing a lot of spaghetti at the wall debate here so I'll move on to something more substantive and diligenced!
Good luck!
That's nice - I know a few tuts who are waiting on this
Let's see who's right! I guess those hoping the stock stays low on a potential ptab ruling in favor in order to jump in at no risk will learn the hard way if I'm right!
Not to mention, those wanting in, will have to compete w my additional 300k I will be putting in!
Good luck to you both! Lol
Oh and as an aside, as I mentioned to another, one data point does not make a case for anything.
It is statistically insignificant and known as "cherry picking" in the data analysis world!
Your post lacks comprehension of my point
Implicit in the comment was "at the point of the district court case", the company "will have" x and y in its pocket
Good luck with your law degree! Lmao
I think suggesting a positive markman plus a positive ptab ruling doesn't pretty much guarantee a win in court is somewhat nonsensical . Given your experience I would think that is almost common sense given the legal implications and hurdles overcome by that stage.
The point on the markman is simply the fact it is "done and positive" along w a positive ptab ruling basically guarantees a large win at district court, not that people will trade off it like it's news. It's the implication of my points that matter.
I think he other point you are missing (while I agree he trading behavior in these stocks has changed), is that smart investors see through the nuances as mentioned above.
While there is appeal risk, w DC an almost guaranteed significant win, the combination of how this company is financing itself with ATVI's tendency to settle, and concern over larger (treble) damages leads smart investors in.
There are differences here being ingnored.
"Efficient infringement" strategy will no longer work for ATVI- a positive ptab ruling kills all of their leverage.
I agree, and in my view much higher than .10 on a win but only time will tell there. Agree if it has to go to the CAFC on a loss it's sub penny.
Given the stock will have a positive markman, and assuming a positive ptab ruling, it is a fair assumption to expect it to trade above its all time high, when none of those were in play.
An excellent article! Remember this post from LAo?
Lol!!!
ptab ruling will probably not move the stock
That's nice, sadly it's two data points that don't look at the important comparable time frames we're concerned about with wddd. Clearly the stock will move materially if it they get through the ptab.
Moreover, it ignores the fact that most IP plays come off during the time waiting for appeals since companies typically are paying lawyers which impacts dilution.
Again, all here know the wddd case is on contingency, a material fact ignored by your charts.
Also, you should look at ptab rulings and trading affect in your analysis and more than 2 data sets to be statistically significant
Cherry picking incorrect data doesn't support views! Lol
Sorry but apples to oranges comparisons aren't good support for a position!
Go to "tools" on here and trades
VHC was trading at $2 about months ago, got around $6 on the ruling.
Good traders know how to trade IP stocks
Oh and let's not forget the major difference here with other IP stocks. I see many constantly ignoring the fact that major dilution is now done as ptab costs are done, and the case if it advances is on contingency!
So the drag it out game by the infringer to hurt the co's share price won't work.
But people tend to ignore that contingency point a lot here
;)
That's nice, we've all seen this view from you prior.
Also, getting cash and a stock moving are two very different issues, again all one has to do is look at many of the stocks in this sector (including VHC recently) to see they react positively on beneficial rulings.
Bye Louis!
Also, VHC just won against apple on the new trial! Sorry!
And to note the CAFC remanded on a technicality that required the trial to be split into two trials, it did not kill the patents.
As one can see from the the price behavior of that stock, rulings matter!
That view is incorrect. Most familiar with this space disagree as a number of recent rulings by the CAFC are realing in a lot of the abusive behavior by the ptab, and indeed their own problem judge Mayer.
As you know w Google VRNG Mayer used 101 sua sponte and misapplied it to kill those patents. During that phase of patent litigation it was happening to many, to the point all you had to say was 101 and the infringer won. That however, has since changed to a more balanced (but not completely) approach. Enfish is just one example, as it took away the nuclear defense of infringers.
Most familiar with this space and more importantly legal precedents know the suggestion made in the prior post while opinion is factually incorrect.
Suggestion that diligence on recent precendents is warranted given such commentary.
Good luck!
I think most people are aware of the following, perhaps you are not?
1. The CAFC is comprised of many more judges than Mayer
2. May or October has no bearing, its precedent and goes to my point that there are many cases that support software as patent eligible and thus defeats the view that Mayers non sensical philosophical rant has any bearing beyond the case it was provided in
3. The PTAB and CAFC guidelines now REQUIRE a two step Alice test
Sorry wrong again champ!
"Federal Circuit says software is patent eligible"
Oopsie poopsie! LOL
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/05/13/federal-circuit-says-software-patent-claims-not-abstract-are-patent-eligible/id=69147/
That's nice. The funny thing about law is the following;
1.there are numerous and volumes of precedent that don't support that ruling as well
2. Again it's one ruling and his decision was not predicated on the destruction of software patents as you seem to want to imply, rather it was a nonsensical rant. Thus, Scotus is more likely to look into it.
3. Sadly, again for the anti patent crowd, software is still patentable according to LAW. Those with law degrees (unable or unallowed) to practice, and even those without law degrees are aware of this.
Too bad so sad!
That's nice. Mayer is well known to be anti patent and is known to make absurd rulings
Anyone who read that ruling can see the ranting of senile old man, and as such his defense will open that case up to a SCOTUS review
Most legal experts are saying it's time for Mayer to step down.
Sadly for some, software is patentable! Oopsie poopsie!
Interesting. I have noticed that a few times by watching level 2 bid ask then the actual trades.
I'm not a "trader" so don't know why that happens but I know it's against market rules!
It seems the MM's are holding this stock down for their own purposes.
I am regularly seeing large asks show up then disappear, otherwise know as "spoofing". My guess is they want the optionality of buying up shares if this gets through the Ptab. If so, they buy up quickly under three then sell above and make a profit as traders and investors come in.
It seems they don't want it going much higher than three cents. Not that a move past would mean much on such low volume but the spoofing here is clear.
Actually that wouldn't make sense since the new holders took out the convert for Kidrin.
I have mentioned this numerous times and it's really common sense, if the new equity holders weren't in for the ptab, kidrin would have allowed the convert selling to simply complete, ie there would be no reason to have someone else come in and simply do the same thing = that common sense I speak of.
My guess is this selling is the normal small amount of quarterly dilution needed to pay bills/ public filing costs as quarterly reporting is nearing.
Good luck
I don't think the stock will move up to the expected cash value of a win vs ATVI.
- it will move materially IF we get past the ptab
- whatever the amount the market "assumes" is on the table will be discounted due to:
Time till they get paid which is tied to....
Appeal risk (however lower than typical if we get past the ptab)
Impact of "traders" who will suppress the stock with quick selling
I think we'd definitely see a move above the all time high and a slow move upward as we get to trial . Don't forget if win, BUNGIE can still appeal to the cafc. It will be interesting to see what the district court does in that situation. Staying the trial would effectively Abdicate trial court responsibility to the ptab so I doubt we see the stay continued.
Typically prior to trial ip stocks trade at a decent discount to expected cash for the reasons above.
Post a win, they then tend to have another move on a win > than what's priced in.
Binary by definition should explain the point I think.
Also, the comments suggest a confusion of issues
1. Change in landscape means nothing once / if through ptab
2. Ptab suicide squads - how would getting through a ptab review have an impact? This is common sense
3. Tripling money has no impact on the valuation of a company those are two very different issues
Sorry but your post doesn't make much sense
Is this a good stock? Should I buy WDDD?
I've read every post and every court document!
Is WDDD a good stock? Please tell me!
lol
LOL!!!
Decent volume today to push it, let's see if it holds for the short term!
I think Chartists should make a pattern called a "golden shower" lol
That would be funny!
Looks like three cent support hey? Didn't that dude call it a while back saying if the convert holder held stock vs dumping three cents was level?
Hee haw hee haw!
---------------------------------
Monkey see, monkey do! ~ captain badonk a donk
They are "supposed to rule within 12 months" and generally have, but they have taken longer at times. So it's a fair and reasonable guess, but to clarify it's not "guaranteed" by that date.
Likely, they will post it on the ptab site but the companies would likely see it first/ be notified and the stock halted for good or bad.