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.
Alphi...Alongside the phone numbers it says "printer version", when I clicked on it it just came up telling about the coming CC, but it also gave this .
Investors and Media:
Cliff Weinstein
Executive Vice President
Vringo, Inc.
646-532-6777
Maybe try calling that number and they have a transcript of the CC you can copy/print-out ?
I will listen again tomorrow, I was listening to it live and right in the middle of the CC my computer went down. So I actually probably only heard half, it's too late to listen now.
This is a look inside Michelle Lee's head, the fact that this is not recent does not change her current thinking. Anybody that thinks she was not strategically put where she is now, in my opinion is naive. She without a doubt is beholden to her former boss.
http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2009/03/patent-reform-needed-more-than-ever.html
It's on the VRNG home page under "investors"
But this is it....Replay (available shortly after conclusion): 888-640-7743 or 754-333-7735
Confirmation Code: 102895#
The day the insiders sold there were 46 MILLION shares traded, are you saying that their selling disrupted any forward/upward movement in the stock ? Their selling was not known until after the fact.
They are well aware that the stock is being manipulated, so like anybody else why should they not strike when an opportunity arises....just like all the "loyal" stockholders have been doing?
They should always be the sacrificial lamb to the benefit of everybody else ?
How can they "work the market" ? The stock market is controlled by pure emotions, always has been, and always will be.
As far as the action of the stock post CC, that is the result of a whole lot of wild speculation as to what the CC was going to be all about, maybe the announcemet of BILLIONS falling from the heavens by next Monday, or maybe even sooner, and when the wild speculation did not materialize.......the selling did.
The stock has a history, and history is repeating itself.
To avoid disappointment, expectatations have to be kept at a realistic level. VRNG Is dealing with systematic pathological lying thieves. VRNG is doing everything in their power to deal with that fact.
"this company needs some kind of reward for shareholders who stick with the company for the long haul... at the moment it has none and that is why the price is so easy to manipulate."
Believe me, when the awards are transferred from the defendants ledger to VRNG's ledger you will be more than amply rewarded.
Until then ?
Do you think VRNG is content with their stock performance ? Do you think they have a scintilla of control of what the stock does, under these circumstances ?
The control of the stock is not in their hands, it is without a doubt totally controlled by devious means.
The defendant's lackies.
Carl Icahn asks companies like AAPL to pay a dividend, AAPL has 41 BILLION dollars on the books. Asking VRNG about a dividend right now is like walking up to a homeless person and asking them for a $1,000.
It's quite a bit premature to be asking VRNG to pay a dividend. Give me a $10 or $15 stock price, then I can decide what my next move is, I wouldn't be sitting waiting for a dividend. I think the question was ludicrous at this stage of this game.
True it was a really dumb question, which should be a warning to treat any other comments that questioner had with a mountain of salt.
I mean where did this looney possibly think that any funds are currently available for any dividend ?
farmerannie You are 100% correct, VRNG's stock action has Google written all over it. They more than likely have some off-shore entity in the driver's seat of VRNG's trading.
I don't post here often, but one of my first posts' here that is what I said, that Google is behind the constant pressure on VRNG stock. It is too obvious.
Didn't one of the callers into the CC ask about a dividend ?
I thought what an idiot. Talk about putting the cart before the horse.
Yes, but Google is the main catch, and when we have crooked stuff like this going on......
WASHINGTON — U.S. Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker today announced the appointment of Michelle K. Lee as the next Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
To me this is no little coincidence, Obama golfs with Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google, and they all of a sudden plant this Google stooge in this position at the USPTO ?
Have you done a research on her......and her thoughts on patent "trolls".
And now immediately right after the favorable decision for VRNG.....now she's da man at the USPTO ?
I just hope VRNG management doesn't take their eye off of this ball.
I think # 6 Is a big problem with the stock price.
The stock market does not like uncertainty, and the Patent Troll legislation creates a bogeyman in the closet.
VRNG can reassure that they'll be able to deal with it, but that does not remove the angst from stockholders,and wannabe shareholders.
If nothing else, that legislation is going to be a distraction for management. Their plate is already full.
Full year , or fourth quarter earnings reports always take longer to come out compared to the first three quarters of the year, fourth quarter (full year) is 10-K, the first three quarters of the year are 10-Q, last year VRNG's 10-K was reported on Mar 21, and will be about the same this year.
Soldier Hard, I meant that as a new post, not directed at you.
One of these days you people that keep saying the rise won't hold, are going to be caught leaning the wrong way.
When you open an account at a brokerage you sign an agreement giving them the right to loan any stock in your account to be shorted, it's a margin account, whether you have more than enough cash in your account to not have to actually have bought the stock on margin makes no difference, you signed that agreement allowing them to loan out your stock. As long as the stock is held at the brokerage it is in "Street Name", the only way your stock can not be lent out to shorters is to have the stock certificate in your posession. Years ago it was common to have your certificate sent to you, free of charge, not so anymore mainly because of the huge turn-over of shares caused by the daytraders. You can still get your certificate, but not free of charge anymore. And if you should lose the certificate, or it gets burned in a fire, or stolen. Then there is a big problem.Not to mention that when you sell the stock you have to get the certificate down to the broker right away, and signed back over to them.
Whoever is short a stock, if a dividend is declared while they are short, they pay the dividend. Only longs of a stock collect dividends, shorts of the stock do not collect the dividend....because they do not own the stock. Shorts have to pay the dividend to the long of the stock.
I mean you have to admit, this guy Allen Lo, Google's Deputy General Counsel for Patents, he does sound pretty sincere and all that kinda stuff.
He sounds like, hey c'mon Vringo, we'll take you to a real nice restaurant, have a couple mixed drinks, somethin to eat, then we'll get down to brass tacks and bang out some kinda long term cross license agreement, that okay with you guys ?
I mean we're Google, that's what we're all about, workin stuff out......not workin people over.
Everybody's got us all wrong, we're the guys in the white hats.
Is This Ironic Or What ?
I heard this on CNBC this morning.
8:02 am Cisco Systems and Google (GOOG) enter into a long-term patent cross-licensing agreement covering a broad range of products and technologies (CSCO) : CSCO and Google announced they have entered into a long-term patent cross-licensing agreement covering a broad range of products and technologies.
•The agreement allows each co to extract significant value from its patent portfolio through a license to the other's portfolio and by helping to reduce the risk of future litigation. It stands in direct contrast to actions such as patent privateering -- or the transfer of patents to patent assertion entities -- that harm consumers.
•"Our agreement with Cisco will reduce the potential for litigation, letting us focus instead on building great new products," said Allen Lo, Google's Deputy General Counsel for Patents. "We're pleased to enter into this cross-license, and we welcome discussions with any company interested in a similar arrangement."
Repeat:
"We're pleased to enter into this cross-license, and we welcome discussions with any company interested in a similar arrangement."
Haha...Tell it to the judge.
It is not anything about price for VRNG to Google, it is about making an example of VRNG, like they thought they were going to do in the trial.......but failed, just like thay will also fail in any attempt of an appeal, which would require them to prove they were not treated fairly, and were dealt an injustice. Everybody knows otherwise. The judge did everything their way, to a fault, so much so that it looked like the judge was on the take. And for sure he did so, so that GOOG's case for any appeal would be weaker than watered down water.
The major thing the GOOG has against them is their reputation, and I'm willing to bet there is no judge they will go before that does not know the full unadulterated story on them.
Simply put....they are a house of thieves.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottcleland/2012/01/20/the-evidence-googles-systematic-theft-is-anti-competitive/
Here Is An Example Of A Seeking Alpha "Writer".
And he posts on the AFFY message board under the same name as used in his "articles". His last post on that MB was Jan 3, 2014
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1655192-affymax-putting-the-pieces-together?source=yahoo
And here is a SA "writer" that was arguing with the SA "writer" of the above "article".
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1664522-dont-believe-in-affymax-the-stock-is-probably-worthless?source=yahoo
SeekingAlpha "writers" are glorified Yahoo message board posters. Do a search on SeekingAlpha hiring. One time I found a link that SA was hiring "writers", work from your home at $20 an hour, I don't know how they could verify the hours worked, but that was the ad. Some of those "writers" seem at least a little knowledgeable, and some of them are downright laughable clowns.
But, they qualify as a SeekingAlpha "writer". Just Search Seeking Aplha hiring, maybe they aren't hiring right now I don't know, but if you look often enough you will find an ad by them.
And when you see their required "qualifications", you probably will laugh. I did. One stock I used to have one of the posters on that message board is a SA article writer, and the posters on that MB would request him to write an article, and what things to say in his article......and he did. That was last year.
I'm embarrassed to name the stock. But live and learn.
Anytime more than 5% of a publicly owned company stock is acquired it has to be reported , that has been standard procedure forever.
And usually it has to be divulged what the acquirer's intentions are.
Question: How is it going to reflect on Google with their "appeal" knowing that they tried to scam the judge with their "work around" ?
That black eye ain't gonna disappear.
Snooop40......You are EXACTLY right !
"As far as the appeal(s) cases are concerned, my understanding is that in order for an appeal to be successful, the appellant must establish that the decision being appealed was formed based on an error. That could be violating a party's due process rights, incorrectly applying case law, making a decision that is contrary to "clear and convincing" evidence, or other forms of "abuse of discretion". I just don't see that in Google's appeal brief.
In the case of Vringo's appeal, it is much more clear where they are suggesting an error(s) occurred."
Of course GOOG can appeal, BUT do they have a legitimate reason for appeal ?
Were they done an injustice? Show where. The judge in this case bent over backwards to accomodate Google, and everybody knows that.
Notuncoolish....Who said any patents were invalidated ?
Paul wherever you got that article I wouldn't waste anymore time there,that entire article is being sarcastic and ridiculing PACB.
I mean not only the Gordon Gekko name, but "Satanic Investment Bank", {Satan) and ridiculing the PACB CEO name, his name is Dr. Michael Hunkapiller, that clown that "wrote" that article is calling him Michael Caterpiller.
It's entirely garbage bashing PACB. Read it and think about it what he is saying, let it sink in. I kinda doubt anybody will take it serious, so it's probably not a real problem.
Paul you can have Yahoo remove that post, they allow a few a year to be removed, I did it once myself a couple of years ago.
Paul this whole article is ridiculing Pacific Biosciences.
“We came in and we took a look at the data, and we asked what the strategy was” said Michael Caterpiller, CEO. “The board thought that their really crappy error rate gave them a unique niche in the market, and that niche needed to be defended. Some in the company actually thought we should increase the error rate, and blow everyone else out of the market in terms of poor quality data” he continued."
Hey Paul you posted this on Yahoo....."We now see the technology as the future of genome sequencing. “I don’t know why PacBio didn’t do this sooner said Gordon Gecko of the Satanic Investment Bank." )
Posted on January 29, 2014----------------------------------------///
"Gordon Gecko of the Satanic Investment Bank" ?
And the CEO's name is Michael Caterpiller ?
And the chief scintific officer is Jonas Coolback?
Do you know who Gordon Gecko is ? I think it's from that movie Wall Street with Michael Douglas playing Gordon Gecko, where he says in the movie "Greed is good"
This article looks like some kind of hoax or something.
Satanic Investment Bank ?
Typo....me...not "mo".
Just saw "Don't Get Scroogled" Commercial on T.V.
The two guys from the t.v. show "Pawn Stars" I can't think of their names right now, but the oldest guy, the grandfather. and his son the bald headed guy, the two owners of the pawn shop did an anti-Google commercial. In the commercial a woman comes in their shop with a Chrome ipad or whatever you call it and the two of them are cutting down the thing to the woman telling her that it is just a tool for Google to track you and gather information on you so they can know what ads to direct towards you. And at the end of the commercial they tell the woman...."Don't get Scroogled"
Haha..
I imagine the commercial can now be found online, I never saw it before this morning.
I saw the Don't Get Scroogled T-shirts and coffee cups for sale by Microsofrt, but until now I thought that was a joke ?
I missed who the commercial was for because it caught mo off guard when it came on, I'm not sure if it was for Microsoft or Apple. But I think it was one of the two.
Looks like Don't Get Scroogled is maybe going to be a catch phrase?
Looks to me like he's saying that Google isn't the only iron in VRNG's fire.
That is exactly what I'm thinking also, have been for awhile now.
The nickel and dime daytraders put as much pressure on the stock as the shorts.
Too many video game generation in the market these days.
They can manipulate it up to ten bucks if they want, I'm thinking they won't get too many complaints.
At least not from me.
Yes, an under the table hired hand for the defense in this case.
I like what it says on that book he's holding up....."Innovation Not Litigation".
Since when is stealing ......Innovation ?
ipitty You probably don't remember but awhile back I was the one pulling some of your stuff from here and bringing it over to the Yahoo MB, it's too bad links can't be posted over there anymore.
And I did give you the credit for it over there.
This news should help.
napkinblue.....Did you read my ENTIRE post?
If you did you possibly must have seen the next line down from the one you chose to dwell on.
If you short VRNG are you informed at that time a SPECIFIC, day, week, month, year that there is going to be a short squeeze and you will have to cover?
And in your opinion do you believe that short interest by itself will pull the price of the stock down ?
NOT additional shorting......JUST the short interest alone.....the VRNG stock that has ALREADY been shorted.
Well that is the difference between you and I, you can figure and speculate on what he "meant", I on the other hand......go by what he actually said.
And that was that the gigantic short interest will pull VRNG's price down.
He did not say anything at all about additional shorting......just that the already stock that is shorted, that would be the short interest would pull the stock down.
To someone new here, and not in the clique....are they supposed to "figure" what he "meant", or go by his actual words.....and no more?
So do you think what he actually said.....was correct?
Would you ever sign a contract that could be taken in various ways, and maybe sometime down the road go in default on the contract, because it turned out to be not what you......figured it to be?
Maybe you would......I wouldn't.