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.
I like your math, Str8t-talk. One thing you forgot to factor into your calculations is that your figures only represent one year of licensing revenues from each infringer. Now multiply your total times the number of years of past due license revenues, plus interest, and you very quickly approach DB's estimate, or perhaps exceed that. Then, when you apply the multiple times earnings, well, you get the picture.
We appear to be moving up nicely today on decent volume. I think that investors have had time to figure out that VP has not lost the battle to monetize its valuable IP. Set backs do occur within the legal process which is to be expected, however, we are still very much in the game. VP remains in a very strong position. After we recover all of the lost ground, the recent dip will be seen only as a missed buying opportunity. JMHO.
Sounds credible to me, Str8t-talk.
Keepemcloser, you could be right for all we know. This message board is an open forum for the sharing of ideas, thoughts and opinions about this stock. Anyone who claims to know for sure what this, or any other stock, is going to do in the future is either lying or delusional. We don't know. This is a speculative venture. I would assume that most people bought this stock because they believed that the potential value would be greater than the face value. Anyone who doesn't believe that should sell and buy something they do believe in. Thanks for sharing your opinion.
VP is not in control of the court calendar, so we must not blame them for these delays. I am sure that VP would like to get this over with as soon as possible.
Should I elect you to become my new financial advisor? If anyone bought or sold stock strictly on the advice of some message board pundit, they would get what they deserve. My advice would be to do your own due diligence and tune out the noise. By the way, how many shares do you currently own? Have you ever owned a single share of this stock?
Who's wishing for .005? Certainly not me.
I'm not laughing at your pain, but I find your comment humorous.
Most eloquently stated, Spyke37!
With all due respect to the many diverse viewpoints circulating, I would like to offer my perspective on our current situation. First, we all know that VPLM is not a blue chip stock and, as such, did not buy this stock because of its share price, but because of its intrinsic value. I believe that the intrinsic value of VPLM today is still much higher than the current share price. Nothing has really changed. We wait for that day when the share price catches up to the intrinsic value. The legal team representing VP believes that the market value of our portfolio is in the billions of dollars. If we believe these experts, then we hold, not sell. In the words of Emil Malak, patience is a virtue. In my opinion, these words are not some empty platitude. They are truth. In the immortal words of Nietzsche, patience is bitter, but it's fruit is sweet.
Thanks Butters. Sometimes, in the absence of a PR, we simply have to do what every good detective does, and that is to read between the lines. The facts are that VP received a favorable ruling from the judge in April, asserting that Huawei failed to invalidate VP's patents on Alice 101 grounds (a side note here is that whenever a company is guilty of infringement, they invariably seek to invalidate the patent instead of denying infringement of the patent). One month later, this case was dismissed with prejudice. Let's think logically now. Would VP agree to a dismissal with prejudice, thereby relinquishing any recourse to retry this case, without first securing a favorable settlement offer? I don't think so. Huawei had just struck out in April and was now facing an immanent jury award with possible treble damages. I assert that Huawei saw the handwriting on the wall, and did the logical thing, which would have been to settle with VP out of court. Where is the proof? The lack of any tangible evidence at this time does not, in and of itself, constitute proof that a settlement did not occur.
Dontnosheet, that's a good question. Out of court settlements typically include NDA agreements, which are stipulated by the defendants. As to the actual amount received by VP in that settlement, the best place to find this information would be in VP's next 10-K or 10-Q filing with the SEC.
Drhome, it was not cancelled. It was dismissed with prejudice, which is often the case when the litigants settle out of court. Yes, that case was settled, which is why it was dismissed with prejudice.
An obnoxious and persistent ad was blocking full access to the edit page of my last post until my time expired, causing that post to look like gibberish, so I will restate it here in its entirety for the most clarity:
I beg to differ, straightword. What information the company is allowed to put out publicly is a matter that is best determined by the legal team representing VP. It would be irresponsible and reckless for the IR department to divulge details that are being negotiated in private, merely to placate some nervous investor. That kind of manipulation would be more in line with what scam companies do. Therefore, I fail to see how this is somehow a red flag, but a scam? No way. Investing involves risk, and not everyone has the stomach for it. If the reasons that you invested in VP still exist, then ignore all of the noise and remain focused.
I beg to differ, straightword. What information the company is allowed to put out publicly is a matter that is best determined by the legal team representing VP. It would be irresponsible and reckless for the IR department to divulge details that are being negotiated in private, merely to placate some nervous investor. That kind of mamipulation would be more in line with what scam companies do. Therefore, I fail to see how this is somehow a red flag, but a scam? No. Investing involves risk, and not everyone has the stomach for it. If the reasons you invested in VP still exist, t704 292 9736hen ignore all of the noise and remain focused.
Thanks, rapz. I always enjoy reading your astute and enlightened posts. I agree with you that one reason for this unexpected delay in proceedings revolves around a dispute over the damages being claimed by VP. VP is assessing damages in the $ billions, which came out in the pretrial motions hearings on July 9th. The defendants are also contesting VP's request to substitute a new damage assessment expert. My sentiment has not changed. They are hagling over the amount, not over the fact that they owe VP. This is the important takeaway.
That is music to my ears, Butters. To recap, the trial dates have been cancelled but the cases have NOT been dismissed. A huge distinction! New trial dates can always be assigned. On top of that, two brand new complaints have just been filed against T-Mobile by Hudnell Law Group P.C, and a judge has not yet been assigned for those. Because of some rule changes, there is no guarantee that these new cases will be assigned to Judge Albright. In these new claims, only the '606 patent is asserted. Through the IPR re-examination process, VP's patents have been strengthened, and are considered to be "Alice proof", plus new patent claims have been added to VP's suite of enforceable patents.
So folks, this ain't over yet, by a long shot. Stay tuned, the pps may fluctuate as investors figure this out, but I see the stock rebounding over time. JMHO.
I hope that Dr. Hauser will do a better job of communicating with the shareholders than we have experienced in the past. In that regard, I think that it is time for an introductory shareholder letter from the new CEO, if nothing more than to give us a contact number and/or an email address where he can be reached, but hopefully more.
Great thoughts, LocWolf! In fact, you even sound enthusiastic and optimistic, which is both surprising and heartening.
That is a good question.
Thanks Goodsport. Yes, perhaps that would be the only course of action.
Yes, which is exactly what Intel did when they attempted to steal our patent by modifying it slightly and then rebranding it as their own at the USPTO. But this time HDC wouldn't need to file an interference patent.
Thanks LocWolf. Modifying HDC's patent to create a totally new patent sounds like a good idea, but that would require experts like Guyon and Weston working for HDC, unless Dr. Hauser brings in a new team that could do something like that. Extending the expiration date on the existing patent also seems like a plausible strategy. A third option may be to create new diagnostic tests using SVM-RFE, and market them, which should be within Dr. Hauser's area of expertise. Of course, the forth option would be to collect licensing revenue from existing users of the technology. I am really curious to hear what Dr. Hauser has to say.
Digdeeper17, no shares have traded hands precisely because the stock is currently not tradeable in a retail market. As to your other point, that "the biggest player only owed 2 mill", Neogenomics paid HDC $6.6 million.
I know that you still see no value here, but one well-credentialed expert in the field, who just became our new CEO, does.
Sunspotter you may be correct, however, I don't believe that Emil and the law firm representing VP would go to the expense, time and trouble to pursue infringement litigation in a court of law, while knowing that their case was bogus, merely to fleece shareholders out of pennies while leaving dollars on the table. According to your hypothesis, VP'S lawfirm was either duped (which would mean that they are naiive) or that they were participants in this alleged "scheme" (which would mean that they knowingly broke the law), neither theory of which I find credible. The shareholders need a statement from the company to confirm or dispel the many rumors being floated by folks with, frankly, no equity positions in the stock.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, however, Emil is not on trial and the judge's opinion of him is irrelevant to the legal matter at hand. This is my opinion.
Str8t-talk, a publicly traded company is required to report any material event within 4 business days through the filing of form 8-k. Of course, VP may also put out a PR through various news outlets.
Drhome, your interpretation is the one that makes the most sense to me. Remember, the judge did not dismiss the case. He cancelled a jury trial. He has seen the evidence and determined that a jury trial would be a waste of the court's time and resources. The judge is compelling the litigants to work out a settlement. If they should fail in that effort, he reserves the right to put the trial back on the court's docket. JMHO.
Hold everything! I think I see it. The following analysis is my best guess at what is happening. Notice, the judge did NOT say "case dismissed". He said "jury trial cancelled". This likely means that a trial by jury is no longer necessary to determine whether or not the defendants are guilty of infringement. The judge must be convinced of the guilt (or innocence) of the defendants, and thus sees no point in continuing with a jury trial. All we know for sure is that a jury trial is off the table. The judge could render a verdict in the absence of a jury. Also, I do not believe that a jury is necessary in order for the judge to impose treble damages. I think that the selling today was a kneejerk reaction by people who were reading a certain interpretation into today's information. It would be helpful if VP would put out an official explanation to clear the air. GLTA.
Thanks, GBC. I believe that whenever a judge dismisses a case, it is either done with or without prejudice. The language used here is different, and must mean something. We need an explanation from VP's management, or from VP's investor relations ASAP to clarify the many questions that remain unanswered.
Applying logic, since we do not yet know the facts, if Judge Albright wrote or said, in effect, that the trials “have been cancelled until further order of the court,” by inference, would this not suggest that upon further notice of the court these trials CAN be resumed? This does NOT seem, in my opinion, like a blanket dismissal with prejudice (which would have meant that these cases could not be brought back to trial). I could be wrong, however, the language chosen by the judge would suggest that these cases have been placed on hold, pending possible out of court settlement talks. It would also depend on who is requesting that the cases be cancelled. One observation I would make is this: If Judge Albright discovered during the pre-trial pleadings that, VP had no valid claims of infringement, would he have said "cases cancelled until further notice", or would he not have said, "cases dismissed with prejudice." We also know that there were no "Alice" issues in these cases, so wouldn't it have been up to the jury to decide if the defendants were guilty of infringement? Would a judge preempt the trial at this point, playing the role of the jury? One final thought is that if Judge Albright cancelled these cases on July 9, the selling reaction would have occurred before today.
I see. Mankind, you do seem to have an expertise in this area. I do note that in my brokerage account, there is a footnote next to the price of HDVY stock which says in effect, that the price listed is not necessarily the actual price. So even though the price we see is near zero, that doesn't mean that the price paid by broker-dealers is so cheap. If I were to place a buy order, not knowing the real price, it may never get filled, as the public cannot view the actual price. I agree that this is not just disgusting, but anti-competitive under the guise of protecting investors. Look, a simple disclaimer like "buy at your own risk", or "buyer beware" would have been sufficient to protect investors, if that's really all that they were trying to do.
You bring a very interesting point of view to the table, mankind. Once we learn that HDC has a viable business plan with a growing roster of licensees, it would not be surprising to see institutional investors and HNW individuals take an interest. At near zero, someone of modest means could easily afford to buy all of the available outstanding shares. Then, if HDC were to ever introduce a new diagnostic test using SVM-RFE, that would be a game changer. Welome aboard!
Ou71764, my hunch is that Dr. Hauser is working as we speak to complete the necessary steps to get HDVY relisted on the OTC market. When that day arrives, there should be ample opportunity for investors to add more. A lot will depend on Dr. Hauser's vision for the company, so I am eager to hear what he has to say. Good luck to you, and to all patient longs!
I concur with all of your observations and conclusions, ou71764. A formal communication to shareholders from Dr. Hauser will probably answer a lot of our questions. But already, our despair has turned into hope.
Correction: I mistakenly attributed a quote to Zenos in post 18362. That quote was actually from YankeesFanInOhio from the yahoo board. My apologies.
Yes, I believe that we are entitled to know the facts surrounding HDC's sudden, inexplicable withdrawal of its presumably winnable case against Intel, and settling out of court for such a paltry sum. Were the alleged damages not provable? Were the provable damages not great enough to justify a continuation of the case? What is the answer?
Yes, Dr. Hauser must be looking at a clear pathway to make HDC profitable. Otherwise, why accept a performance based position from a company whose stock is virtually worthless?
I think that my point could be made clearer if I rephrased it. First, the idea that HDC lawyers could have claimed lost licensing revenue as part of the damages they were seeking from Intel is now a pointless argument to make, as HDC withdrew and the case was dismissed with prejudice. However, a compelling argument could be made with the USPTO that, even though HDC ostensibly owned the patents to SVM-RFE the whole time, they were not free to monetize it through licensing, because this ownership was tied up in dispute with Intel. Afterall, what company would have forked out money to HDC for a license, when it was not clear who the real owner was? Also, and I think that Zenos made this point, even if the patent is set to expire next year, infringing companies (and there are many) could be compelled to pay licensing fees to HDC for all of the prior years of infringement and up to the date of patent expiration in 2025. The fact that Intel settled is a testament to the validity of HDC's claim of exclusive rights, which could be used as leverage in compelling other infringers to pay up or be sued. We do not know at this point what Dr. Hauser's gameplan is for HDC, which could include not only signing licensing deals (creating a revenue stream), getting HDC compliant with the IRS and SEC (which is a pathway to being relisted on the OTC), but potentially developing new diagnostic tests using SVM-RFE (after all, this is within his area of expertise). I remain very hopeful and now see and agree with Mr. Fromholzer's parting words that HDC has a bright future in the field of AI and medical diagnostics. Not since Dr. Barnhill, has HDC had a CEO who was also an expert in this field.
Yes, I believe that we have one, which is the most important one covering SVM-RFE. I think that a good case could be made with the USPTO to extend the expiration date of this patent because HDC was denied effective use to license the technology during the period of years when the ownership was in dispute with Intel. Eventually, HDC prevailed and the exclusive rights to SVM-RFE technology were awarded to HDC. Incidentally, these lost licensing revenues could have been claimed as incidental/comsequential amages in HDC's lawsuit against Intel, which, alone, could have exceeded the announced settlement amount. IMHO.