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.
Actually, if they don't use the patent to create products
THAT is the point - NPE's have he deck stacked against them. Understand the difference in my point sir
Worlds being an NPE is YOUR opinion.
"If someone buys a painting and puts it up in their den and lets it appreciate, thats not a NPE its an investor in art.
If someone buy a piece of land and sits on it and doesn't share it it doesn't make them a bad person, its called an investment.
If someone buys a patent but doesn't currently use the patent but believes down the line it will be valuable that is not a patent troll or an NPE. NO its called investing. If it doesn't get used it was his money to lose."
Impressively intelligent commentary
I suppose sharing facts about WDDD that people don't like invokes anger and vitriol
Perhaps its time to realize you didn't know the risks of wddd and you are not invested on logic but rather emotion?
getting mad at me won't change that
1. Again, 101 has NOTHING TO DO WITH COMBINATORY PATENTS
101 DOES NOT REQUIRE COMBINATORY PATENTS THIS WAS A FALSE ARGUMENT BY PATENT PLAYS.
1. NOWHERE HAVE I SAID THAT BECAUSE WDDD IS A NPE THAT OTHERS CAN WIFULLY INFRINGE - I HAVE NEVER STATED AS SUCH, PLEASE DO NOT MAKE UP SOME ARGUMENT I HAVE NEVER STATED
Prominent Boutique Law Firm taking this case on 100% contingency after 9 months of research and deliberation into the facts, the same firm and lead attorney (Max Tribble) who has successfully beaten ATVI in court before.
The fact I have corrected MANY here proves that out.
People want to argue that a 1 man company with no R&D spend, no revenues, and only patents as its only asset is not an NPE - read the friggen definition of a NPE - anyone arguing that point is basically telling anyone with a brain the word 'english' is not spelled 'english'.
People argue against the fact that the company stated in its own 10Q it would undertake an offering to repay notes in default (if it logically cannot pay from proceeds from the suit - and since those proceeds wont be seen for years, clearly an offering is reality) - but somehow that is not a fact? No its a fact, and those people want to ignore that reality.
People want to argue that 101 doesn't apply or they try to convolute the issue, to confuse others and misdirect, when ATVI ALREADY RAISED 101 IN COURT!! but no its not applicable? really? people here are smarter than AVTI lawyers?
People want to argue that the CAFC doesn't kill patents when facts show they have been very anti npe/patent holder since the AIA was put into place? really?
People here didn't understand/ wanted to argue that judges can't address issues sua sponte?
People here wanted to argue that the patents can't be completeley killed? ie tied to the cross appeal issues?
People want to argue that risks of this case are somehow mitigated by cases that have not been ajudicated and ruled on, and as such are not in the library of precdent?
Ok - then why is it such a big deal that their software (that you at first did not know existed, I presume) isn't profitable?
AlphaInvestor has been really good for this Board.
Yes I know so what is his angle. Does he work for Activision? or what?
Go read the ptab filings guy, you are wrong and I know cannot deal with it.
The ptab filings show
1. Kidrin was not the developer as you say
2. He bought the company / acquired the patents via that purchase
3. The company does not develop any software - Mr Kidrin is the only full time employee, he is not a coder, they have no products that are marketable in any sense or commercialized
So now you are declaring that their patents should not be valid because they have not generated revenue?
A patent doesn't become invalid because they tried to use it and then were infringed upon and leapfrogged.
As another user stated best: "Let's say I invent a Patent but I have no money to develop or market it. Does this mean any larger or richer firm can steal my invention? I don't think so."
1. Thomas Kidirin is the only employee of WDDD - he is not a programmer/coder and is not creating any products sorry
2. He has been the only employee for years
3. Those products you named are legacy products from years and years and years ago and have no commericial value as even you state, owning old piles of junk that no one pays for does not mean you are a company that is in the business of creating and commercializing technology. It means you own old piles of junk
4. I would suggest you read the filings from the ptab as to WHO created those patents and who BOUGHT them - you will learn as a FACT mr kidrin did not CREATE THEM SIR
[QUOTE]
Alpha, in post #25681 you stated: "I was under the impression the ceo was selling that stake (merimed) anyways? Could be wrong on that."
In a later post (which I'm too lazy to go through all the posts) I think you stated that WDDD wouldn't sell that stake.
Wouldn't this be in place of a public offering. We own approx. $2.7 million in merimed.
If Susman is willing to commit $15 million (theoretical value of hours expended) it is telling that they value the IP accordingly.
Does worlds make products sir?
And did kidrin create the patents or did he buy them.
I am right -too bad
It says proceeds from the award or a public offering
Now, I have common sense, do you?
I AM NOT SURE WHAT YOU DO FOR A LIVING, BUT I INVEST PROFESSIONALLY
[QUOTE]
Wouldn't this be in place of a public offering. We own approx. $2.7 million in merimed.
[QUOTE]
A sell off happened with each and every delay.
People hate seeing "dead money"so to speak.
If the Federal court was inclined to rule WDDD's patents invalid she would have issued the ruling and disposed of this case not agree to stay it and then kill it after a PTAB appeal. That is a ridiculous assumption.
It's amazing what someone coming in with a bunch of bold and all-caps with over-the-top statements can do. But I'm extremely glad we've had this discourse the past couple of days. I, for one, have learned/confirmed/been reminded of the following (in order of importance, IMO):
PROs
1) The six patents we have left are valid.
2) World's patents are non-combinatory, meaning that they do not simply combine the value of other patents and take advantage of "fake IP." WDDD's patents are technical solution patents that were the original for the technology in play.
3) Susman Godfrey's contingent involvement. Prevents Activision from pulling out "big boy tricks" to eliminate WDDD. The fact that such a prominent boutique law firm took on a company with $86K in cash and $91K in total assets on contingency is pretty amazing when you think about it. They literally have everything to lose. WDDD has a $91K patent company to lose.
4) The VirnetX case applies more heavily to WDDD because they also had software patents that were non-combinatory, in which the judge validated the patents and awarded further trial.
5) In general, the MA court has ruled favorably for patent holders in 101 cases.
6) The GOOG v. VRNG case, in which 101 was invoked to kill VRNG's patents, involved patents that were both combinatory and not technical solution patents. VRNG's patents were marketing/advertising-related.
7) There are at least tens of cases (posted here) where 101 is invoked as an argument by the defendant and fails. Many times it's simply used to "throw **** at the wall and hope something sticks" and to delay the legal process. Yet VRNG was the only big name we've seen so far where it stuck, and the judges went out of their way to recommend it to GOOG.
8) WDDD's equity in MRMD provides a true "floor."
9) The Wifi One case - set to rule fairly soon? - could be a catalyst to set a $0.10 floor for us if a decently-positive ruling is made. These could literally be the last weeks/months to get in at sub-$0.10 until after trial.
10) The judges Alpha has pointed to aren't "patent killers," but are more likely to rule against IP as of history. But nowhere near a slam dunk even if one of them happens to be on the case.
11) Chance of having even one of those judges on the case is unlikely.
12) Getting closer and closer to trial, as arguments should be done by October, and then roughly 16-18 months until real action. Compared to how long we have been waiting, this stock is now in the "short to intermediate" term in my view.
CONs
1) One or two of the patent-hostile judges could send the PPS closer to the real "floor." And would reduce the chance of a positive outcome. The court system has the ability to "haphazardly" - actually not haphazardly at all - select judges for a specific case. And if the courts want to shut WDDD down, they likely can. The stock is reduced to the value of the MRMD equity in the short-term as WDDD ponders future procession. HOWEVER, the judges aren't known until the day of the trial, so if the stock is going to $0.005 because of the judges, it was going there anyway.
2) Most patent plays do not end up with a favorable outcome. But as Patent Plays has elegantly stated, many of the cases in the related field of technology have fared better.
3) $290,000 of notes payabble are in default. Going to need to dilute (issue additional shares), or sell of some of MRMD. The 10-Q mentions an offering in the 10-Q or proceeds from the litigation, which isn't going to happen, and doesn't mention MRMD sale. Either way, will decrease equity in the short-term. Still fairly trivial as a % of market cap.
4) 101 is still in play as a risk, although Alpha has only brought up GOOG v. VRNG in this regard, in which the types of patents in play were completely different, as described above.
CONCLUSION
Alpha came here with good intentions (it seems from his initial posts) and within days was incredibly hostile to many members of this board. As someone standing on the outside reading, I knew he had two decently-valid points, but when pushed on them for more proof/reasoning, he got incredibly defensive and angry.
All in all, the risks he promoted were real, but definitely mitigated by a lot of information others have posted here.The rewards here, based on great work by Patent Plays, Data Stream, and others, greatly outweigh the risks. There may be legal moves made that are unforeseen as of now that will have many of us on the losing side,
but that's the risk you take with a penny stock.
2019 is nothing for the longs who have been here for a while. The case has advanced very well since my entry point in 2013/2014 and although we could have used more claims validated, the fact that we have gotten this fair (speaking from my 2013/2014 mindset) is pretty incredible. And the fact that we're so close to advancing further at $0.04 is pretty nuts to me.
I will be adding more and more as we go along....I wouldn't be shocked to see the PPS floor move to ~$0.10 with a decent Wifi one result and as time passes.
Remember....the price of this stock will not get very much lower than $0.04 no matter what happens with related cases. And one can only assume tons of people got out of this solely due to the time factor and that a final decision wouldn't be finalized for years. Any older investor is likely not going to wait out a penny stock with a six-year horizon. The final years of that horizon though? Different story.
The closer and closer we get to that decision....the higher and higher the price will go. Once the PPS starts rising....it's only going to keep rising.
First of all, all caps isn't helping the situation. In fact, it will probably lead some people to not rely on what you're saying rather than rely on it. Just a tip in general.
Second, again, I apologize if I missed the post where he stated so but I don't think anyone is saying combinatory patents have to be involved for a 101 ruling. It's more important that a positive outcome was had for a patent case much more like ours (VirnetX) than the one you have been citing to this point (Vringo). If you'd like to link us directly to a more related case - like at technology case with non-combinatory patents - where 101 was invoked to kill the patents, I'd be super interested to read. It looks to me like the cases posted all were fairly relevant to WDDD's case and in none of them did 101 end up killing the patents. Vringo is just one case.
So while 101 is a risk, it's not as direct and simple as saying "It happened to Vringo, so it's a major risk." All of the DD here says otherwise, that it's a risk, but a minimal one.
And I'm sorry if you have - the Board has become super cluttered in the past week and I don't do this for a living.
Third, do you not view S&G's contingency plan with WDDD to create a super upside in WDDD? Even if WDDD loses, they don't run themselves into bankruptcy because of the contingency. S&G would be paying top $ to have taken on the case. Why do you think they took the case on then?
[QUOTE]
101 DOES NOT REQUIRE COMBINATORY PATENTS NOR ONLY COVERED BUSINESS METHODS
[QUOTE]
Are you actually suggesting that the CAFC has not killed patents where 101 has been used as the basis of that decison?
What? I think I already gave a major one and there are many more - USE GOOGLE SIR
[Quote]
Whatever the wifi one outcome it will go to scotus if it kills anything to do with the aia process sir
And if you think the cafc is going to bother upending the AIA you have not followed their behavior for the past decade it has been law.
Gotcha. Thanks.
Gotcha, thanks for the reply. Definitely what I was looking for.
I guess the real issue is the extent to which the judges think World's technology add value to the final $ value of revenue that ATVI.
Remember the parties at stake in this case. WDDD's claims would extend to every single video game company ever, and extend out to industries outside of video games. It's one of the reasons I could see the royalty numbers being much lower than many of us would hope. I highly doubt WDDD will just be awarded $500M in royalties and then be allowed to sue Disney, Microsoft, Sony, Mad Dog, etc. for the same amount.
Anyone have any idea on the dilution? The language used in the 10-Q is eerie.
If that were the case Worlds patents would never have been validated. I think 6 claims have held up on challenges already. Worlds is suing to get the other back.
Further, there is no way that The finest Patent Attorney firm would take this case on a contingency. That to me is clearly an expert's judgement on validity & value.
RE:
Its all in the coding of the games.
Can someone clarify this for me?
The holders of the promissory notes shall receive repayment in the full face amount of the note from the initial $750,000 the Company actually receives from the net proceeds of its patent infringement claim(s) or from the net proceeds of a public offering.
Selling general and administrative (SG&A) expenses decreased by $115,561 from $223,351 to $107,790 for the three months ended June 30, 2016 and 2017, respectively. Decrease is due to professional service fees surrounding the patent infringement lawsuit and raising funds last year with limited activity this year.
RE:
I'm not an attorney. I only majored in common sense.
What you try to point out is the very reason a Patent Holder has rights of ownership. Let's say I invent a Patent but I have no money to develop or market it. Does this mean any larger or richer firm can steal my invention? I don't think so.
Let's say I invent a Patent but I have no money to develop or market it. Does this mean any larger or richer firm can steal my invention? I don't think so
Your example is of no value.
I only majored in common sense.
No judge will be reading Worlds SEC filings. Investors read those, judges don't peruse. They only read briefs prepared by council on the legal issues before them. Whether Worlds continues to develop it's technology has absolutely no bearing on the merits of the patents validity.
[QUOTE]
As far a further technical development, the company spun out its technology to WORX now MRMD as a 1 for 3 dividend for shareholders in 2012 who have benefited with a s/p of $.65.
As someone who knows very little about the VRNG cases.....
1) Did VRINGO ever enter discussions with Google/ZTE regarding use of VRNG's patents?
2) What exactly were the discussions Kidrin and Activision had regarding WDDD's patents? Were there specific and valid threats by WDDD to Activision if they indeed continued "infringing?" Can that be proved.
3) What happened with the ZTE settlement on 12/7/2015 and why did the stock drop 50%? I'm assuming the settlement missed expectations?
4) Why has WDDD not attempted to make any sort of progress with its software recently?
5) How difficult is it for Activision to claim they simply invented "around" WDDD's patents?
-------------------------------
I have always believed WDDD's patents do exactly what online gaming has become in this day and age and they were the true originators of the base patent for all 3-D, virtual online multiplayer software. But the lack of development of that software and continued absence of any real purpose has always troubled me. I am long and have been for a few years and am holding onto this as a gamble. All I have kept coming back to in the last couple weeks is why they haven't even tried to make any sort of product or create any type of revenue. It's part of the reason the stock is at $0.035.
RE: Alphainvestor8
Every single person here understands what risks are involved. And anyone with any investing sense is treating this as a lottery ticket.
Generically stating that a penny stock has risk 50 times can get annoying. Not sure how you don't understand that yet. You're not bringing any incredible insight to this conversation with your repetition.
$WDDD has fairly likely $0.00 risk, $WDDD has potential incredible upside.
That's what you say now, until .06s roll around!
Would love to see some upward movement today for sure
Would have been nice to take some well-deserved profits...but has everyone completely forgotten why they found this company in the first place or did they find it for different reason. This company has a chance to get PAID or a chance to win in court (and get even MORE paid). That's why I came here. And the chances of that happening look better than ever. Be patient, be still.
Sure, this is definitely a huge blow for anyone wanting to get out or flip profits based on a markman runup. Doesn't change to much going forward, this is still an big underdog in court if it makes it there.
Maybe we can actually see movement upwards in the next couple weeks as many have suggested. Definitely not counting on it anymore, but would be nice.
Based on the previous runup in 2013 based on far inferior news, we weren't too far off in thinking this would at least get to .30 after the hearing we got. It didn't, so sure, you're right. But there might be influences in the way of inflating the price. No one expected Hudson Bay to push the price down to .07 while we waited, giving us a joke of a starting point. If we had been at .15 when the news came out with no Hudson Bay, maybe the story is different. We didn't expect this would take as long as it did, further allowing the price to be suppressed while we waited.
I don't know much about Vringo, but they seem to be different. Comparing them jdoesn't do it for me personally.
I expected a $1 runup post-markman based on history but that was short-sighted and I wasn't considering the low price, Hudson Bay issue, convertible debt, and low starting part. And I think a settlement (unlikely) would be under $100M. But there's no reason not to hope a successful case opens up boundaries for other cases. Like I have stated before, we all know the downside of any penny stock but there's no harm in speculating on the best and better-case scenarios. If I'm disappointed after this all ends, so be it. Won't regret talking up and dreaming the possibilies. JMHO.
That's what makes me personally excited about Worlds as an entity. Not just the potential to hold this as a (relatively) short term investment, but to potentially be able to see them turning any winnings they get into new technology and business. Let's be honest, the original Worlds technology was brilliant and ahead of it's time. No one had figured it out yet. Here's to hoping they figure it out again in the future.
Volume very low through 9:54 AM.
EDIT: I absolutely do see this as a multi-dollar stock in the future if a few things go right. There are a lot of ifs involved, but there's so much potential. This is a .15 stock with an outside (but possible) chance of being worth 10x, 20x, 30x that eventually, and none of us are stupid enough to put our life savings. We all knew from the beginning that this was more likely to fail than succeed, but why sit on the boards and trash it? Would love to know your motives. We KNOW the downside.
Yeah it would, but $500M is highly, highly unlikely just a number thrown out by some. My point was just that intrinsic value and PPS won't match up for a stock like this, although someone can correct me if i'm wrong.
The stock may be worth 2-3-4-5 per share intrinsically, based on potential settlements, lawsuits, etc. But chances the PPS actually gets all the way up there? Unlikely, unless Worlds puts a legitimate effort into building its technology after winning these suits. A company with no assets besides cash and no income isn't going to get enough investors to drive it to what it's worth on the surface, IMO. But $500M worth of damages, of course will drive the stock way up. Just my opinion though.
Most people here are in this for trial, one way or another. We believe in the facts around this case. All you have stated is the IPR. I'd love to hear more. "History repeats itself and that's just how it goes..." And there's a lot of history in our favor...between patents in court, SG, Tribble, the stock history, etc....I couldn't disagree more about Monday. But all in all Monday is just one day in a long process.