Worlds Inc (WDDD)

[AlphaInvestor8]

Patent Plays, some comments on your posts

IMO its not "if" but "when". Worlds already can go to trial on the claims that survived.

1. This comment ignores the factual realities- it makes an implict assumption that WDDD could have not their patent killed by the CAFC - I raised the 101 issue and key judges who are known to be anti software patent.

Your comment suggests that there is no way WDDD can come out unscathed and only gain, and this assumption is EXACTLY what cost VRNG holders most of their investement. It is patently false (no pun intended)

2. On WifI one - you speak of 'catalysts' - most people here are making assumptions of upside without thinking about risk and realities, this is another example

While Wifi one is indeed an interesting and related case, again implicit assumptions that somehow and en banc hearing will change things for the 'better for patent' holders, really ignores the reality of how the CAFC has acted toward patent holders for the past 10 years and how they have been working hand in hand with the PTAB to destroy patents and patent holder rights.

Making 'positive' outcome assumptions on other cases and ignoring risks leads people to get irrationally exhuberent about a NPEs chances - I've been there, many as you see here have as well.

People need to learn, you need to look at each case in isolation, determine its 'specific' risks, then invest on that and that alone, not the hope that some 'other cases' will go your way and help.

If scotus ignored cuozzo -what makes people think the lower courts don't see that? Sure they are looking at oil states, but who's to say that won't go the same way?

Who's to say the CAFC won't punt this issue of Wifi up to Scotus? You see? So many assumptions that 'all these things are catalyts - is implying you are saying they will go WDDD's way'.

One should NEVER invest in WDDD (or any company) making assumptions on the positive outcomes of other cases -that ignores 10 years plus of rulings by the PTAB / CAFC / and scotus, and makes one inflate opportunity and improperly assess true risk.

There is a reason this is trading at 4 cents sir, its not because the 'market just doesn't get it'

I would think 'trentonlaw' would know that no?