is... buying more shares
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.
Exactly correct.
Hopefully filings from the obvious passive TUTs are accepted for what they are by the majority of VRNG owners. Sometimes the TUTs re-organize their holdings and this leads to filings. There are other reasons as well.
Every step of the way, from the Russell inclusion, to the reconstitution, to various Vanguard and Blackrock filings, etc. the result has been the same. There is no magic bean to find in SEC filings from passive managers.
Hopefully there will be news soon and something better to discuss and not having to explain the same things quarter after quarter.
As I posted back in February:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=96778577
After buying Barclays' assets three or so years ago now, Blackrock is now the largest asset manager in the world. It goes without saying that Blackrock is a major passive institutional investor. They own iShares, which includes several large Russell 2000 variations -- and other indices -- all of which VRNG is now a part of. Although Blackrock is historically considered an active asset manager, the Barclays assets are major passive index-tracking vehicles.
As I have stated for the umpteenth time -- when we occasionally see these large filings from investment managers like Blackrock, Vanguard, etc. -- what is being reported is related mainly to passive asset management and this time is no different. This is not some big news...
1) in general?
Undervalued. Out of favor with the market as patent companies taking a beating with highly publicized adverse (or perceived adverse) rulings across all fora (USITC, PTAB, CAFC, etc.)
2) coupons case?
Breach of contract case is not the same as patent infringement and it really is hard to handicap a case that has been going so long without any positive traction. As a DSS shareholder, small position as it is, I would love a giant payday from Coupons. But as a realist, I just don't see it. Anything positive from the case will help the stock, but again impossible to predict when and to what degree there is a resolution.
3) apple case?
It's too early in the discovery phase to make judgements as to what the potential damages model will be when presented to the jury (assuming it goes the distance). On one hand, it's a glorified lawsuit against Apple selling keyboards and mice. On the other hand, it has the potential to intersect all of Apple's mobile and computing products. But we are in the dark until the case progresses and key info is made available to the public.
4) Bascom case?
These are the key assets for DSS and a lot is riding on the cases against FB, LinkedIn, et al. Big opportunity here, but also a lot of hurdles to jump along the way. That's why this has been such a bumpy ride for shareholders and probably will continue to be for awhile.
Where does one even start?
NFC payments are not new. Apple Pay isn't based on something brand new from the actual wireless/transmission side.
Bluetooth is not NFC.
DSS doesn't own bluetooth.
Posters really can't blindly connect dots on overlapping fields of technology. There are about a bazillion nuances in all of these different technical specifications that exist. It is a massive waste of time to discuss every time something is announced in the media that this new "thing" isn't owned or related to whatever stock the poster owns.
We have gone from Apple selling keyboard and mice to utilizing virtual VISA/MC/American Express account numbers to facilitate consumer charges.
This isn't worth our time to discuss.
There's no connection. EOM
I am certain I am correct.
My role is to provide investors with reality. First and foremost, VRNG has been beaten up pretty bad after its CAFC loss and many out there are desperate for a reason to believe good things are coming in the immediate future.
Active managers with the kind of pedigree Blackrock represents don't load up on low value equities (priced under $1, often called penny stocks by many) and they don't load up on risky IP plays who are facing a longshot en banc request/denial.
Also, index funds don't rebalance as frequently as you suggest, and they are not required to sell shares. That's misinformation.
Again, my intent is to be keeping it real for all investors who need a dose of such reality. Expecting "something to happen with this company in a positive manner" based on 13G filings from Blackrock is what I like to call connecting dots that do not exist in the real world.
Time, as always, will tell.
As I posted back in February:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=96778577
After buying Barclays' assets three or so years ago now, Blackrock is now the largest asset manager in the world. It goes without saying that Blackrock is a major passive institutional investor. They own iShares, which includes several large Russell 2000 variations -- and other indices -- all of which VRNG is now a part of. Although Blackrock is historically considered an active asset manager, the Barclays assets are major passive index-tracking vehicles.
As I have stated for the umpteenth time -- when we occasionally see these large filings from investment managers like Blackrock, Vanguard, etc. -- what is being reported is related mainly to passive asset management and this time is no different. This is not some big news, especially considering Blackrock has already been reporting a big ownership stake of VRNG in previous filings (because they have so many vehicles that own VRNG as part of underlying index holdings). As Sab reported, Blackrock has recently changed how they are reporting and has recently made several (translated: MANY) increased 13D/G filings across many different equities. Someone needs to cancel the "Blackrock is buying VRNG parade" because there isn't anything to celebrate that we didn't already know about when VRNG became included in the Russell indicies last year.
I don't compare apples vs. oranges. As a discussion, it's a non starter and serves no useful purpose.
VRNG is focusing on hardware. The majority of its lawsuits (ASUS, ZTE, Belkin) are related to mobile equipment and computer peripherals.
I agree. Flyers and hispeedsoul are really spoonfeeding us excellent DD. This is a great board as it spoils investors!
The one comment I have on the potential opportunity is that MARA's playbook seems to be offering great discounts for settlement. So my first instinct would be to look at the opportunity of the total $1.5 billion and think of a 10%-20% range for settlement.
And even that would make the share price soar as we know the valuation is just a fraction of that.
1) Ronaldi comes from Turtle Bay and has other history in the sector, but NOT with IPNav. The DSS connection to IPNAv comes via Hardigan and Rosellini (who was the founder and CEO of Lexintgon, that merged with DSS). Rosellini is now Director and Chair of the Audit Committee at Marathon Patent Group (Nasdaq symbol: MARA).
2) The operating business of DSS is a two-edged sword. While it is clear there are advantages and synergies of having the legacy DSS business combined with the IP business, so far the company has been unable to extract value from it. And there are also disadvantages to having a dual approach. For starters, it's hard to focus on one side as both take away resources and capital from the other. Historically, the core business has not thrived. And I wouldn't be surprised to see a divestment at some point in the future.
And up she goes...
$30 dolla holla!
Here it is:
Commission Opinion for Investigation #337-868 (Public Version) (PDF file, 15 pages)
bob, you seem to understand the ITC quite well!
Here are those letters, both as PDF files and viewable images:
Letter to the Hon. Patrick J. Toomey, U.S. House of Representatives (PDF file)
Letter to the Hon. Kristen Gillebrand, U.S. Senate (PDF file)
Are you saying that if VRNG doesn't get some miracle buyout to save shareholders overnight that the only options are to be delisted and/or file bankruptcy?
That sure is an extreme perspective. I would like to think investors were more open minded to all of the possible outcomes, most notably the one where the company slowly builds itself based on the strength of monetizing its Nokia patent portfolio. It started with the ADT/Tyco settlements, next is the active multi-jurisdictional international dispute against ZTE, the ASUS dispute, the Belkin dispute, and a handful of opportunities they haven't even yet begun to pursue.
Phenomenal run SWIR has been on recently.
Good times!
Not doom. And not gloom either. Just reality relating to the subject of a buyout. There is a ton of value with VRNG that is NOT related to a buyout. Desperate bag holders want a buyout so they can recover their losses overnight. Investors who can identify a beaten down IP company with valuable patents and strong key personnel to monetize the assets see a long growth opportunity.
VRNG is the only company who can make its current patents work because only VRNG has David Cohen. Cohen is the guy who used to lead NOK's litigation/legal team and achieved a massive settlement with Apple. His skills are unquestioned by those in the industry. There is not going to be buyout of VRNG because Cohen doesn't come along with a buyout. (Not to mention the Nokia patent purchase agreement has clauses and provisions that would make a buyout very unattractive to many a 3rd party.)
No need to guess. None of those companies are likely to buy VRNG. Let's go through them one by one with logic, not blind guesswork.
GOOGLE - just got the proverbial "get out of jail free" card from the Federal Circuit's reversal. With the I/P Engines currently invalidated due to obviousness, and not much time left until they expire, GOOG isn't going to see any value in buying VRNG.
AOL - see above, since AOL was tied to the case and partially settled prior to the jury trial on another aspect of infringement.
Yahoo - with GOOG currently off the hook, they aren't going to need (or want) the I/P Engine patents. They also don't produce anything related to the NOK patent portfolio so no need to go after those either.
ZTE - Chinese company called a security risk by the U.S. Congress. The House Intelligence Committee declared them a national security threat. Putting this into mathematical terms, the odds ZTE would ever be allowed to buy a U.S. company that owns patents related to U.S. government manufacturing, protocols, and equipment is somewhere between null and void.
Microsoft - thet already settled with VRNG on the I/P Engine patents. They do not need to the NOK patents because they bought NOK's mobile division which includes free use to all of the patents VRNG bought from NOK.
This sector is very advanced and investors would be better off not trying to make wild guesses about things that aren't likely to happen.
where did I say never?
Not likely. The 500 patents are encumbered in the sense they have already been asserted against a number of companies and agreements have been reached with a couple of them (ADT/TYCO). Not to mention Nokia still has ownership rights as per the terms of the patent purchase agreement.
If one takes the time to read the terms of the patent purchase agreement, one will see there are various provisions that make this a highly unattractive option (Nokia's retained ownership rights, impairment clauses, penalties, etc.)
Also, the key value of the 500 patents from Nokia is that David Cohen is at the helm asserting them and monetizing them. Without Cohen, who surely will bail if some entity "makes a mid for the whole company", the value is diminished greatly.
So for a multitude of reasons, it's simply not a realistic scenario.
crtdude, I think the CAFC decision re: VRNG was from somewhere out of left field. It really is incomprehensible how Mayer and Wallach came to the conclusion they did, but the takeaway is something I have been preaching for a long, long time.
And that is that the CAFC are demi-gods who have shown a predisposition to reinterpret patent law on the fly and have the power to do just about anything they want. If the DSS vs FB and related cases were in EDTX or some other "more favorable" forum, perhaps I would not even think of worrying about the CAFC decision in I/P Engine vs. Google. But this case is in Judge Susan Illston's NoCal courtroom. So who knows?
On the plus side, DSS is years away from having to have the CAFC decide its fate... assuming this case goes the distance. Perhaps they might settle long before it gets that far and all of this legal hocus pocus regarding 101, obviousness, and everything else becomes moot.
The thing with a company like this and the team that they have (Cohen) is that they will pounce on good available patents for sale. This could include a straight up purchase of a portfolio, a mixed deal (like they have with Nokia), or anything else they can imagine.
So you never know.
no way to really know because they haven't disclosed all of the details of their existing legal representation agreements across all jurisdictions internationally and we don't know how long the ZTE/Asus/other disputes will remain ongoing and what they will yield upfront
it was 500+ patents and applications from Nokia
LOL. And that is why I love these MBs!
they seemed to have lost control
up 7% now, printed 12.29 earlier
volume today already at 191,447
not sure what to make of it
According to this joint case mngmt. statement document available on PACER (8/15/2014), the defendants said the following:
Defendants propose to file a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, or alternatively an early motion for summary judgment, requesting that the Court declare the asserted claims invalid under Section 101 so that this potentially case-dispositive issue, which is purely a matter of law for the Court, can be resolved while the cases otherwise remain stayed.
...Defendants would be pleased to discuss with the Court whether to style their proposed motion as a Rule 12(c) motion or alternatively as an early Rule 56 summary judgment motion, in which case Defendants would respectfully request leave under the Court’s Standing Order. In any event, under the unusual circumstances of this case, Defendants propose that resolution of this threshold legal issue should not exhaust Defendants’ opportunity to seek summary judgment on additional issues (such as non-infringement and prior art invalidity) to the extent this motion does not dispose of these cases entirely.
Defendants propose the following briefing schedule on the Section 101 motion, to be followed by a hearing at the Court’s convenience:
* Defendants file motion – September 10, 2014
* Bascom files opposition – September 24, 2014
* Defendants file reply – October 3, 2014
So it's coming in the near future.
It kind of speaks for itself. FB is using the ambiguity in the Alive vs CLS ruling by SCOTUS to delay the case and possibly even get lucky if the judge buys their bullcrap.
All we can do is wait and see what happens. But it would be a big surprise to me if the summary judgement is granted for the defense. I expect the judge to get train moving once again.
Justice delayed is justice denied. So far, DSS has been denied it's opportunity to prove infringement and that's not the way the system should work.
I don't think they are severely weakened vs. ZTE going forward. Yes, it would have been nice to have a huge war chest courtesy of GOOG to help with the fight against ZTE, but it's not going to stop them. They will find a way to finance the litigation and continue to survive.
I think VRNG is going to be fine long term, but we've seen similar types of washouts too many times in the past to think VRNG's stock will be immune going forward. Unfortunately for many (myself included) the trading environment for VRNG has shifted dramatically after last week's CAFC decision. So many momo players, penny stock vultures, and other participants are going to be dominating the marketplace and VRNG is going to be a volatile pinball being bounced around all over the place. We've already seen that in just two short trading days since the decision was published. That's a game I don't much enjoy playing, so I am on the sidelines waiting for a less "crazy" atmosphere.
As for "convincing you otherwise", I don't want to convince anyone. I want everyone to make their own choices based on the best possible information available.
Sab,
I am inclined to agree with you that IF (and it's a big "if") the Federal Circuit accepts to hear this case en banc, that VRNG has a very good shot at overturning the reversal.
But the problem lies with getting the court to both vote on an en banc hearing and then accepting to hear the case. Statistically, the odds are not in VRNG's favor. I think it's not likely to happen that CAFC will hear this en banc. But it is still possible.
Perhaps VRNG's petition will be amazing and will convince the court. Maybe not, it's impossible for me to speculate what it will be. There have been only a handful of en banc requests granted in the last few years, and even though the Federal Circuit has been taking on more en banc hearings in recent years, the percentage is still somewhere far below 1%.
So I wouldn't want to be gambling on this specific outcome. There are plenty of reasons why VRNG could recover going forward (ZTE, ASUS, this CAFC case, etc.), but time is a key element. VRNG will submit a petition within the next week or so. It will then probably take a month for a decision on the en banc request. And even if granted, an en banc hearing is likely to take around a year for a decision (Judge Newman will assure to that with her slow writing style - LOL!).
I think we are seeing with the price bounce off the lows to somewhere in the mid $1.3X's earlier today that the sell-over was overdone. But I still think there is a good chance of a wash out over the next month or two without the type of positive news/events VRNG needs to stay above the water.
As always, IMHO.
I own neither VRNG or WDDD currently. I have played both many times, but have not touched WDDD shares since early 2013.
But both are fascinating stories and I will continue to follow both and hope for the best for each. It's upsetting when good patents are infringed upon and big companies evade paying for their use.
I don't think it is black & white. For example, with VRNG you have a company that buys patents and creates them too. VRNG created the IPE patents they used to sue Google. They have previously created patents with their India R&D department, and they currently are creating patents with their partnership with Va Tech. At the same time, VRNG purchased patents from Nokia which they used to successfully negotiate settlements with ADT & Tyco. And these 500 patents are also the basis for other active lawsuits against ZTE and Belkin and ASUS. They also have different patents that they neither bought nor created. Microsoft agreed to assign ownership of these patents as part of a settlement agreement.
WDDD may be a pioneer and creator of its own patents. But let's just assume for a moment they bought the patents from someone else, such as Electronic Arts. That really wouldn't change the way ATVI approached WDDD's lawsuit and/or settlement negotiations. The one major advantage of being a PE is that you have the leverage of a possible court ordered injunction against the patent infringer. But in the current case, due to what's happened to date as well as the timing of the expiration of the patents, an injunction isn't an issue going forward.
So what benefit of being a PE is there? The courts aren't going to split hairs on this. They are going to look at the invention, the obviousness, the applicability, the construction of the claims, the validity, and so on and so force. They aren't going to look at whether the plaintiff is a PE, an NPE, or any other classification.
I think it makes some patent investors feel better about their investment if they can declare they have the advantage of being a practicing entity and their investment isn't a "patent troll." But that's not much worth to me. In general, I'd rather invest in a patent troll who bought the world's greatest patents in the most lucrative sector of technology manufacturing than invest in a practicing entity who invented weak patents in a weak sector.
A company can be a pioneer in R&D, create its own inventions and patent them, yet still be an NPE.
Conversely, a company can buy other people's inventions and still be a practicing entity.
Retail investors and journalists make too big of an issue of NPE and other classifications for patent owners. The truth is there are simply no black & white categorizations that we can place each company into. The lines are blurry, and each company is unique and has its own model.
One of the biggest patent creators in the wireless sector is IDCC, a true pioneer of wireless standards. IDCC is an NPE for all intents and purposes.
VRNG may have bought the IPE patents they used to sue Google, but VRNG's own employees/executives/consulatants (Lang & Kosak) were the original creators of the patents having invented them while working at Lycos.
Again, being an NPE, a troll, a PAE, a PE, a pioneer, a profiteer, or any other classification of patent owner isn't that important. What's important is the quality of the intellectual property owned and the opportunity to assert the patents and monetize them.
Might be related to Justice Chen, who is one of the only two remaining CAFC judges on the VHC panel (Rader stepped down), having wrote the dissenting opinion in the VRNG decision.
Thanks for updating, you are correct. I missed that part from the 10Q, so the cash per share is lower than previously posted.
Yeah, Smart Money, I agree.
There's just too much fiction and nonsense being tossed around. Which is pretty disappointing since real people have lost a lot of money on VRNG this past week.
Inventors can't patent wireless communications as they apply to the standards?
Yet companies like Qualcomm, InterDigital, Nokia, Ericsson, etc. have been collecting billions of dollars in revenues from wireless patents since the 1980s!!!
Click, poof, gone. I won't be responding to trolls anymore.
you are confused on so many things
1) wireless standards are not open source
2) the wireless/mobile patent portfolio has nothing to do with the patents invalidated in the Google appeal
3) judgements won't be refunded because there is nothing to refund - no payment has actually been made by Google
patent infringement is very different than filling out a Form 1040EZ and about a million times more complex
The monetization opportunity for VRNG's internet search/advertising patents was always going to dry up after Google - win or lose, tainted or not. They expire soon anyway.
The cost of the NOK mobile patent portfolio was $22 million + 35% of any revenues generated (but only after the first $22 million is recouped), so it's clearly worth more than $22 million. And there is a much longer shelf life to these patents as compared to the search patents.
These NOK patents are currently being litigated against ZTE (big opportunity) and Belkin (small opportunity). ADT/TYCO have already settled whereby VRNG has received over $1 million to date from the two combined.
Also, the NOK patents cover so many different areas of technology, it's really impossible to guess which patents VRNG will assert next and who they will go after next.
Just based on the NOK patent portfolio opportunity by itself, that's a very reasonable starting range you present. Value should be much higher if they can structure a good ZTE licensing deal.