Every day is an undeserved blessing.
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.
G's profit is concrete... driven by engine demonstrably, substantially and concretely/specifically designed (and upheld patent in court and uspto) by Lang & co... is hardly abstract...
Appeal potentiality all sounds like a mess no side would really want (in the relative short, but in the long for GOOG)... that's only going to make the lawyers particularly happy.
I haven't been tuned in the past week- but don't we have to assume that: 1) GOOG is going to do all they can to optimize their position if settlement looks like their best situation vs. judgement, 2) Wouldn't that position be optimized by giving every indication of appealing?
Seems to me "the game" is really one of pole-position for settlement just prior to judge ruling.
GOOG APPEAL: REAL OR SABER RATTLING?
Up to present, recent / objective articles and analysis really substantiate what informed longs have known-- likelihood of 3.5% of 20.9... $500M, plus addition of ZTE traction.
Time span expectations - so much more than technicals with case outcome (USPTO, etc.), have been the only moderation of share price.
So GOOG is going to - MUST - give the impression of unmitigated fighting-- an unrelenting "all in" including appeal -- the question is to what extent this posture is real intention / resolve, or strategic with interest of minimizing damage.
Any informed commentary on this? My only two-bits is, given the staying-power of jury verdict and likelihood of VRNG-favorable "final" ruling -- (1) Do GOOG want to face likelihood of laches being reconsidered?, (2) Do they want this to keep haunting them?
That's a good assumption. When special offerings were made at $3.25, and then $4.25... on basis of GOOG and ZTE, with only laches taken out of play... but now substantiated verdict, and great traction per latest VRNG reply--- there's good basis that institutions may see this as optimal entry point. If not the explanation for this spike-- certainly inevitable, and validation of upward trajectory.
VRNG Reply: 4 Main Points...
4) Ravager (and those like him) is an absolute, shameful disgrace... an embarrassment to his profession;
3) With any additional motions, GOOG runs the risk of getting absolutely smoked (further, if possible)... allowing VRNG further opportunity to crystallize their demonstrably superior case;
2) VRNG firm grounding in this case - minimal $500M substantiated (GOOG may appeal, but I think they're pretty well cooked... after Friday, they're thinking about cutting losses);
1) NPE - ZTE... big picture grounding beyond... $10-20++/pps near term.
Steve Kim doesn't call it a long shot... much less, "at best"...
He acknowledges we're speculating, and speculates most notably that:
"Unlike the jury, Judge Jackson's findings concerning the royalty base must have specific support in the record. And the only evidence in the record is Dr. Becker's testimony regarding the royalty base. Because of Google's strategic trial decision not to offer a competing number, I believe that the most likely outcome on the royalty base issue is that the running royalty will be based upon 20% of Google's U.S. ad revenues. It would be virtually impossible for Google to successfully challenge such a finding on appeal, and in fact, that is the only royalty base figure that is absolutely supported by the trial record."
MUST READ ARTICLE BY EDVACOURT - HERE - December 6
One thing seems certain now that Google (GOOG) has made an issue out of the Norfolk Jury's damages award in their recent response to Vringo's (VRNG) motion for interest and supplemental damages: Judge Jackson is going to be faced with a decision. Does he tackle the numbers himself or does he tell the sides to take it up on appeal? Let's go with the idea that Judge Jackson will take up the question if only so the appellate court doesn't have to do what he would not. There can be little doubt that how the Judge deals with this question is now a, if not the, central issue in this case.
It was clear from the trial, in the evidence presented and through the testimony of Dr. Becker, Vringo's damages expert, that the sole apportionment figure presented (Google did not offer one) was 20.9%. In fact Dr. Becker presented figures from similar cases that could have driven the apportionment as high as 40%, a risk that would be encountered should this case go to appeal. The 20.9 percent apportionment was on 96% of Google's U.S. revenues. Again, there was no testimony on this apportionment number other than Dr. Becker's during the trial and when Judge Jackson was asked during the proceedings how he might perform the calculations, he offered Dr. Becker's exact method as a standard. Dr. Becker also recommended a 3.5% royalty which was the lower end of a royalty range that given similar cases could be as much as 5%. So there was never any confusion during the trial about how a royalty base was derived, what numbers were used (the numbers that Google turned over during discovery), what the apportionment should be, and what the running royalty number should be.
As far as the 3.5% running royalty awarded by the jury, the Judge upheld this in his "Judgment in a Civil Case" of November 20 (see that document). We are not waiting for another judgment on this number as has been suggested elsewhere. Google will pay 3.5% of some future number. This number can be debated until we get a clarification, but an appellate court would be tasked with following the weight of the evidence presented during trial. That evidence shows expert damage calculations based upon a 20.9% apportionment of 96% of Google's U.S. revenues to establish the appropriate royalty base.
So, when examining how the Judge might rule on this question we have one side (Google) that says the Judge must rule in favor of a future number that is derived solely from the manner in which the jury did their computations in arriving at their past damages award. The other side (Vringo) says that in fact any future royalty base should be derived from the evidence that was presented at trial. In Vringo's filing for interest and supplemental damages the Judge is asked for his opinion on the methodology. And because Google's response to this motion here is to say that given the jury award, in fact the non-Google defendants have been aggrieved with an apportionment of 48% of the entire award, it now appears clear that the Judge must and will respond. Both sides are now trying to clarify the award methodology.
So if you are a believer in the theory that the damage award tabulation was inconsistent with the evidence presented at trial (which I am), you believe that Vringo is simply asking the court to not only award supplemental damages for the period not included in the jury verdict (October 1-November 6, 2012) but also to clarify the calculation methodology so that it is consistent with the evidence and testimony presented at trial. Since a clarification by the Judge in favor of Dr. Becker's methodology, restated in a post trial declaration here, would not only be a major step forward for Vringo and its shareholders, but would also cast a cloud over the jury's past damage's calculation, I believe we will see a "motion to correct" those past damages. This is likely to be filed by Vringo before the court rules on supplemental damages so that both may be considered at the same time.
If you are not a believer in this theory then you applaud Google for essentially doubling down on the jury verdict, not only to dismiss supplemental damages entirely, but to seek to correct damages against the non-Google defendants via the jury's resultant calculations. This even though the formula utilized to arrive at those numbers appears to be inconsistent with that offered during the trial.
So what do I expect? I have written about, studied and attended the trial itself. But that doesn't mean I know what will happen, no one does. Here is what I expect will happen:
Vringo will file a "motion to correct" the past damages number awarded by the Jury to have Judge Jackson consider it with their already filed motion for interest and supplemental damages.
There is enough case law that suggests the Laches decision greatly hinders Vringo's attempt to recover pre-judgment interest. Therefore I put the likelihood of Vringo getting such interest at less than 50%.
Because I think a "motion to correct" is forthcoming from Vringo, the court will be forced to look at the evidence from trial and not narrowly at the jury verdict as Google would prefer. Upon inspection I think Judge Jackson will correct that number, again assuming it is asked of him, and arrive at a past damage number for Google that adds $143M to their current tab of $15.8M.
One of the reasons that the jury, in theory, and as was argued in the motion by Vringo, was not able to calculate the early fourth quarter base (where Vringo argues for the supplemental award) was that they did not have revenue figures from Google to base such an award on. It seems likely that should Judge Jackson decide to amend the past damages he will also award supplemental damages as one without the other would seem inconsistent. Should the Judge rule in this manner the supplemental award would be roughly $13M.
Because of the apparent confusion in this case, or at least market based confusion, I suspect that Vringo will also "motion" for clarification on the methodology to be used going forward to establish the royalty base. Should Judge Jackson clarify in a manner consistent with what I have outlined above and which I believe was his intent in his judgment of November 20, Vringo will be awarded what I think they already have been awarded, $600M over the next four years on the basis of flat revenue from the infringing products which seems plenty conservative in light of Google's own projections.
The Roman poet Virgil said "fortune sides with he who dares." Vringo is now trading at the low $3 level, even after "winning" an infringement lawsuit against Google. Given the multiple points enumerated above, this represents a dramatic inflection point to buy.
anyone give an informed reply to Ravicher-- particularly the 3.5% applying only to past, not future?
I think... hope... we're going to see a reversal in momentum tomorrow. I was on the sidelines with some till today... hoping for an MM-induced dip. I think they did what they could, but found a basement. Again, could be wrong.
When MM's do this it's like a slingshot being pulled back... tension... anticipating, if not signaling, positive catalyst.
GOOG's reply on the table, setting it for spotlight now on VRNG's response within days, and judge decision.... In the cycle of things, this is due for another $4+ push. Any positive news will do that for VRNG... and right now, GOOG has pretty much assured that likelihood with their pettiness....
(1) The greater duration of time where (2) the price is inflated based upon speculation (reasonable, but not definitive substance), where (3) the upward range could be immediate and substantial (drawing more volatile-oriented / nano traders because (4) there exists sufficient fear in various/possible actions that could spell dramatic decline (known by all riding this train the past few months - all someone needs to utter is "USPTO" and the red herring works it's evil magic!)= greater likelihood of MM manipulation...
I would never bank on a base with this one. It's a moving target - diminished only as speculation becomes substance (happening, but not definitive). I have reasonable confidence in an EVENTUAL BIG VRNG win here... but we have some processes before us yet (likely a few we haven't conceived) that will probably give us all another, good buying opportunity in the $2's if we're patient... and then again, the uncertainty could pivot in the other direction with "other" catalyst moment-- ZTE announcement, etc.
Bottom line, after last week GOOG seems decidedly resolved and ready to go the distance... put it in the hands of the judge - for better or worse. We need to keep in mind, settlement or judge - the loss is statistically insignificant. Particularly after last week- I'm betting for them it's 100% principal... seeing trolling and not their on usurpation/infringement... they can't conceive of any kind of settlement. That will likely / eventually bode well for VRNG... but taking settlement expectations off the table, will mean duration of rough waters (albeit increasingly diminished)...
Practically what it means is last weeks' hopes for a settlement linked to agreement will have passed... puts the target back on process and judge... diminished confidence in settlement. At this point, seriously, what more does GOOG need to know? One must ask what other unforeseen shadows might be lingering... what cards haven't been played?
My guess is GOOG's reply will ignite a minor sell off / buying opportunity because of turn to speculation... likely basing in low $3's, possible high $2's... to rebound quickly with sights fixed on new pole of expectation: VRNG's reply and judge's "final" determination. Timeline extended a couple weeks.
In all this, definite increase in institutional investment. ZTE gaining traction. In my opinion, very good risk/reward ratio. I do hope to pick up some more high $2's / low $3's if it happens.
VRNG drew people with impulse/ microscopic philosophies... and is turning out to be much more formidable, but requiring greater patience (just a bit more).
Seriously-- who would have thought a penny-stock company would have mustered the world-class team, products, strategy (etc.) to be in the same RING with the undisputed GIANT-- and at THAT - to have WON?
No disappointment here at all. In fact, for anyone who missed the train-- they're able to get on board now at the same price-- where potentiality for substantial gain (at least 2x, if not surpassing) near term is even greater... i.e,. substantial versus speculative.
Even the past two days-- in addition to influx of institutional investors, we've seen tremendous stability over past... demonstrating confidence / stability. Shorts still here -- trying to play the same game -- are going to get absolutely fried.
Were you a member of the jury? You forgot a "0" -- $30.
Would have been an unprecedented affront to jurisprudence if judge did not minimally accept jury decision, much less "judge" (correct) the faulty math... to "allow" everything to go on, not granting MSJ's, etc... obviousness clearly off table.
Very solid reasons for our expecting $500-600M minimum decision, or $300M++ (net/net) settlement... or $B buyout. And with ZTE potentiality, development of search platforms, all-star team... value of which is validated by dramatic increase in institutional investment-- and now, at bargain-price... what's not to like?
Without a catalyst, I highly doubt it goes near $3. This was a short run accompanied by MM accumulation on eve of GOOG's reply to VRNG, with at least a decent possibility of settlement... and if not, tipping VRNG's hand per judge's final decision which can only improve existing status quo / baseline range. That's not even touching ZTE, or proliferation of what has been established as VRNG's profit-driving mechanism.
...a very hard floor at $3.50. I had an order in all day, and even AH... no luck. That's control if you ask me.
BANI... just plain ugly.
BANI... here's hoping...
UCSO... A VERY UGLY SITUATION.
It's a very small world, and success of his/their venture depends upon far more than simple observance of the unethical, PK substandards. His/their reputation is on the line; I am acquainted with their prospective partners, and their arena. We have the documentation demonstrating their campaign of deliberate misinformation, corresponding to actions which resulted in harm. There is a headline story here that very well could be the basis for class-action, particularly as Marc/Elite come from reputable backgrounds, invited us to trust based upon those backgrounds, and depend upon this reputability to survive. I personally corresponded with them, invested substantially based upon their information, even aided them without cost... based upon their invitation to trust; they violated it. If there are not timely amends, they will be exposed... and I invite anyone and everyone to use whatever means at their disposal to join me.
I'm remaining quiet because I'm absolutely disgusted with UCSO, Marc, management and Elite. Beyond this catastrophe, his/their reputation remains in the balance... I play in a similar arena, and I know this for sure. They deliberately misled, pretended to be representing specified intentions.... I gave them the trust their releases and background information requested... and they obliterated it. What more to say? The damage is far beyond those who invested and lost... it extends to their future. What they do with this information-- in interests of resurrecting any semblance of success... is up to them.
As with any pink, there are two often disconnected things going on at the same time: 1) The actual value - based upon real and potential profit, business plan, etc., and 2) Investor behavior.
We have BGEM and LYJN as examples of well-established, high-profile, profit-generating PK companies whose big announcements do squat to the share price. That puts investor behavior on center stage--- most of whom in PK-land have attention spans of an ADHD kid on speed... and whose decisions are more informed by what other PK-investors like themselves might do, than in core value/potential of the company....
For a company with true/solid fundamentals and profit-reality/potential, the PK gypsy investor moves on... and in a period of time, with the right news, the security can become like the favorite toy they once lost and rediscovered... only with an influx of folks who recognize longer-term, higher potentiality.
So I'm betting (hoping/praying) that this thing is bare-bottom, that folks recognize enough short-term potentiality not to sell for a loss... that this will stabilize above this current level, and be poised for rocket-rise on profit-oriented news.... The announcement today could be interpreted as a pump, lacking substance, but I think more fundamentally it demonstrates real interest by management in engaging investors on potentiality of new acquisitions, particularly in light of the gold-industry climate....
Anyone?
IMHO--- MM's are loaded low... shorts are covering... base seems stabilized here, and pointing upward.... I think the path is clearing for another dramatic sky-rocket.
Just loaded up some more (my first-entry .11 is waiting...). Both this AGCZ-specific news, and latest gold-industry news, are very favorable for this to rocket. I still remember AGCZ being plugged as "the stock of 2010" by Francis/HyperGrowthStocks and others... and that was when it was at .30+... the business platform has only developed from there.... Good things ready to happen here IMHO....
So, besides a minor sell-off, what does all this say?
Is that 86% who shorted yesterday?
The catalog was acquired for shares.... Their confidence in his capacity to monetize it...
RMDM... HUGE BUY VOLLUME!!! @.0004: 154M Buy x 11M Sells...
RMDM... HUGE BUY VOLLUME!!! @.0004: 154M Buy x 11M Sells...
RMDM... HUGE BUY VOLLUME!!! @.0004: 154M Buy x 11M Sells...
Put RMDM on your radar folks.... Chart, business ready to erupt, cash-in-hand, active management cultivating a variety of deals, big merger on the table, committed to investors in share restructuring (buy-back)/regular communication, trading at the bottom, building steam at .0004... recent .0018....
Put RMDM on your radar folks.... Chart, business ready to erupt, cash-in-hand, active management cultivating a variety of deals, big merger on the table, committed to investors in share restructuring (buy-back)/regular communication, trading at the bottom, building steam at .0004... recent .0018....
RMDM: Look to $.01+
RMDM has cash, bon-fide/marketable products, active/enthusiastic management cultivating real contracts, prospective merger, commitment to investors in both communication and share structuring... far more than most stocks at .01+....
Scottrade has a "NO BUY, SELL ONLY" on SNRS... ??
Very interesting pre-market activity...
BB&T... no longer part of CBCGQ. None of us know exactly what remains of CBCGQ... what is their business? What are they selling?Value is entirely tied up in outcome of bankruptcy decisions, and/or leverage of existing assets.... right?
Go ahead and smack it!
News coming....
MM, none of the "facts" have changed (sticky, etc.). This has been and remains a speculative risk/investment, the basis for all of us to get in or not get in. Clearly none of us are happy about the CURRENT pps... and as such the evident/immediate effect of the 1/1000... but this company hasn't really begun yet. The verdict is out. In that regard, I'm going to go out on a long limb and venture to say: 1) he/they are much more vested in making this work (money!) than you (it's his/their fulltime livlihood), and as management; 2) they are in a better place to appraise the importance/value of decisions such as the r/s... longer term.
Thus, that leaves us with our immediate/known realities... your posts, and the current share price which, if it were a function of your own language/posts alone, would have it much lower than it is even now. In short, you have no one else to blame, and yourself to thank.
Whether you short or long, the pps right now... I could care less right now... I'm in this for the years. The truth/wisdom of this will be known beyond any of our provability right now... at some future point... which is perhaps why they call these "futures." Do with that what you will. I'll do the same.
There's good reason to believe its system testing. What's the news?