Worlds Inc (WDDD)

[StockAlphaDave]

Again,

VRNG occurred prior to numerous decisions that have since clarified and reigned in the reach of Alice arguments that were simply "say it and you win" - which is I agree what many did in the past

Happy to see actual similar cases with similar claims that were upheld at the ptab that were then reversed with tighter / more restrictive claim construction

I rely of facts, law, logic and precedent. Show me law, precedent that applies not "Wallace can do what he wants type arguments" . Such commentary is effectively "fear mongering" in my view.

Wallach can not do what he wants he needs to back it up with related precedent and new precedents show a two part test is now required - odd that I have yet to see debate arguing my logic on the 558.

And by no means am I saying it's not a risk, rather that such a risk is being over emphasized based on unrelated cases.

What happens to vhc has ZERO to do with WDDD - THE CASE FACTS / PATENTS AND THUS LAW AND MERITS ARE 100% different

I recall you said

If this see's .01 or .015 you'll see my SEC Form 13D.

I don't understand the inconsistency between that comment and a wallach nuclear outcome at the CAFC. Please explain

Thanks