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.
OK, you are correct but what I meant was that FH went down because
VHC went down.
VHC lost against apple, that's why it went down
Rain,
agree with your points and thank you for your contributions to this
board but this quote in the press release really irritated me:
"...I have witnessed first hand their commitment to create value for shareholders..."
Excellent post arper.
I thank both you and Rain for explaining your positions in an
intelligent way. I, like many underwater longs here, invested in this
company based on the perceived competence of the management team and
Stout in particular. While their legal expertise is not in doubt,
their strategic judgement has been shaky at best. The unfortunate
CAFC decision notwithstanding, one has to question:
1) Whether going after two of the biggest, most intransigent companies
in the patent space before securing the finances of the company
through smaller deals (as other companies have done) was wise?
2) Whether their levels of executive compensation were excessive?
3) What, if anything, Lang has contributed to the company (aside from
being the inventor of the search patents)?
4) Whether they will ever conclude a patent licensing deal which involves substantial recurring revenue?
5) Whether flicharge will gain a foothold in the charging market?
I agree with Rain that the company is undervalued and remain long
but to say that this investment has been a disappointment is an understatement!
Let's hope that 2016 will be a better year.
Any substantial recurring revenue would be nice. One-time payments create too
much uncertainty
Red, you express my sentiments perfectly.
Thank you.
Thanks Gio, this is helpful
Plus they had revenue from the rugged computing acquisition
I hope they will conclude other settlements soon but not counting
on it
True, they were hurting for cash but it appeared they would get
at least some cash from the UK and Brazil as well as potentially a big payday from the NDA case in New York
Agree with many on this board, something doesn't add up in terms
of the publically available information regarding this dispute with ZTE. Either:
1) ZTE had additional leverage we are not aware of(personal/legal/governmental?);
OR
2) There is more to this settlement than meets the eye (stock price says the market doesn't agree with this possibility);
OR
3) Vringo essentially gave up and decided to focus on
building their business in a different way (i.e. with products
not lawsuits).
I have great respect for your opinion Poststyle but I don't understand why they would agree to this settlement if there were
no ongoing royalties
The WoC was denied, there is no further recourse for Vringo - read the press release from Vringo if you don't want to believe me.
It was denied, game over
Thieves win
Grant
Vacate
Remand
In other words send the case back to the Appeal Court and let them
have another try at getting it right
These were my personal favorites:
"I have to tell you that that is about as
aggressive and unjustifiable position that I have seen in a
long time."
"If somebody is asked, did you supply X kind of information to the NDRC, what do you expect the witness might do, tell you the secret formula for Coca-Cola in response? I don't get it."
"So what you are saying is, it's not enough just to ask them to leave if it looks like you are getting into a sensitive area. We want them out 100 percent all the time because you never know when one of our witnesses, that is you, is suddenly going to have some failure of understanding or brain seizure...."
Completely agree with you on this JJS.
It's all about limiting
damages, or proving that there shouldn't be any.
Unfortunately, I think ZTEs new legal team are more
competent than the previous ones. They know they will lose but
are trying to limit the damage as far as possible.
Thanks for your input on the NDA issue Giovinco, makes more
sense now, and for pointing out the inconsistencies in Z's
position on Guo
I agree with you JJ, it doesn't make sense for
Kaplan to grant this request and I'm not sure why V even
asked for them, unless it was a trap (i.e. to see if Z would violate other NDAs). Z agreed to it, so they must of thought
it wouldn't adversely affect them.
I guess this strategy would prevent Z from revealing this information later? I.e. If Z decided to produce one agreement with a very low rate.
Well said JJS. We appreciate your contributions nonetheless.
Let's hope it all turns out well for those of us who have been
in for a long time.
That's hilarious, thanks for alerting us to that exhibit.
Basically they are saying, give us any patent licensing
agreement you have ever entered into, lol.
Apparently Kaplan does agree!
From Doc 202: "Vringo is not willing to aid Mr Guo in evading US authorities"
Hopefully Kaplan agrees with that.
JJS, I agree and thanks for your take.
I would love to see some concrete evidence for ZTE trading in
VRNG stock, that would really be the hammer. Creating stocktwits
accounts and press releases to spread misinformation doesn't seem particularly egregious to me.
JJS,
it seems to me they want two sets of sanctions. One for concealing
the information about Guo (wasting time and money) and the second for actually not appearing.
From Doc 202: "Vringo is not willing to aid Mr Guo in evading US authorities"
Hopefully Kaplan agrees with that.
Thank you JJS for your input on this issue
Thanks Long-vestor, this is helpful.
I fail to see how running from the law is equivalent to
a medical emergency. Guo shouldn't come to the US for a deposition
involving possibly illegal manipulation of VRNG stock because
he is afraid of being arrested for other criminal acts? This
argument holds no water imho.
See PACER docs posted last night:
https://vrng24.files.wordpress.com
ZTE provided a copy of the non-disclosure agreement to
Google and Google promised to aid in PR campaign (according to
ZTE docs).
ZTE emails confirm extensive violation of NDA and coordinated campaign to affect VRNG share price, possibly including actual
trading in VRNG stock
If I were ZTE I would settle with Vringo and craft a deal similar
to Nokia whereby Vringo's defends ZTEs IP for a percentage of the profits.
Thanks for posting, interesting reading to say the least!
Great post. I agree that the Supreme Court should remand but
I'm still not confident that CAFC will rule the way we would like.
They seem to have enough wiggle room to try and justify their
original ruling. Anyway, one step at a time.
Even if they remand there are a lot of legal issues still to be
resolved that will take a while (assuming no settlement)
I'm not really the person to ask but yes Vringo will submit
a writ of cert. to the Supreme Court and hopefully the SC
will remand to CAFC based on TEVA or broaden the TEVA
ruling to more generally address de novo CAFC review.
Not a slam dunk though.
I see now that this question was clearly answered in Vringo's
en banc petition.
It seems clear that the TEVA decision should require a reversal
of the 2-1 CAC decision.
JJS,
with regards to the TEVA decision and its application
to IP engine vs Google. Do you consider obviousness of the Lang
patents a purely
legal question (so unaffected by the TEVA decision) or
was it underpinned by factual determinations (due to testimony
by expert witnesses) and therefore covered by the TEVA decision?
TIA
Hopefully a sign of things to come.
Is the CAFC releasing the en banc written opinion
+ dissents today?
Couldn't agree more. Also Google heavily lobbies and
contributes to both Republicans and Democrats.
Most of the US general public thinks Google is a great American
business so it makes sense for US politicians to support
whatever google wants. Europeans are more wary of American
business practices and collection of data regarding internet
usage patterns so European courts and politicians are liable to be less receptive to what
Google wants.
I'm no Obama fan / voter, but I agree. Go ask Obama what Vringo is & I'd bet the farm he has no idea. It sucks what happened to Vringo but it is what it is.
Correct, and thank you for correcting me.
Two of the three judges on the panel that heard the VRNG appeal were appointed by Obama: Judges Wallach and Chen. Judge Mayer was appointed by Reagan. Their respective vote goes to show that you cannot always tell how someone will vote based on who appointed them.
President Obama had nothing to do with this.
You can't blame everything you don't like about the world on him.
Two judges, not appointed by him, made bad decisions based
on their own views that's all.