Worlds Inc (WDDD)

[AlphaInvestor8]

Firstly, again you seem to be focusing on OTHER CASES that you then assume some positive outcome as your rationale against my risk commentary.

Wishful thinking of other cases yet to be adjudicated does not mitigate specific risks here.

Since no one knows the outcomes of those cases / ie they are NOT precedents, using what you "hope" the outcome to be as a defense is absurd sir.

You are hypothesizing that some other outcome will occur for another case that will then remove risks here. That is not a mitigant that is a hopeful opinion.

Also, your commentary in your response below is completely ABSURD. You are suggesting that just because SCOTUS is taking a case they will rule in a nature that favors worlds and change the aia process? Nonsense

The Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals are hearing the cases, where in the past similar cases where refused. This is not hypothetical wishful thinking. Change is certain and Worlds like VirnetX have cited these cases as reason for change of decision. This is not flights of fantasy but fact

Trenton Law, anyone with law experience KNOWS the areas bolded above are hyperbole and opinion ONLY and that is the ONLY FACT.

1. Similar cases were refused? That is absurd. Many cases have been through SCOTUS and taken aim at the AIA process and PTAB from many angles, all with the same END GOAL - to find the AIA unconsititutional, or to kill the ptab process or parts of the process that unfairly prejudice patent holders and / or deny them proper fair due process.

In ten+ years (or however many years the AIA has been law) nothing material has changed and that is NOT because SCOTUS has failed to hear cases as you INCORRECTLY SUGGEST (or they have denied certs as they find nothign wrong with the past rulings/law- you ignore this important fact -denying certs also means alot). It is because SCOTUS has failed to rule in favor of patent holders in any way to substantivley change the AIA process or find it unconsititional (sadly).

2. "Change is certain" - This is the MOST ABSURD ASSUMPTION I HAVE SEEN YET. Your comment suggests just because SCOTUS took the case they will change it in favor of patent holders? SCOTUS affirms cases constantly, they don't just take cases to change them, otherwise the reversal rate would be 100%. There is a reason legal pundits always opine on outcomes, its because they often affirm and not just overturn. That is a WHOLLY FACTUALLY INCORRECT STATEMENT - You might want look back at what occurred in Cuozzo/MCM which were joined and addressed many of these same issues.

3. "This is not flights of fancy but is fact" - Your OPINION is not fact sir.

4. Finally, irrespective of what SCOTUS rules in Oil States, that won't be ruled upon until 2018.

By then the CAFC will have ruled here. If they kill these patents, which is INDEED A LEGITIMATE POSSIBILITY, what happens to the stock price while WDDD waits to see how SCOTUS rules? Does it go up somehow?

Or does it trade down well below 1 cent on the hail mary that another case at scotus will allow them to go en banc and win, or force them to then appeal to scotus in a year, and hope its heard?

And do tell, what happens with that time gap? If the CAFC rules before law is changed (if it ever even is, but lets assume it does change), and the patents are invalid by their review and they hear it en banc prior to scotus ruling, scotus will NOT grandfather the change.

They will say the ruling occured under 'existing law' which was then altered post that ruling.

They will not go back and 'fix' every bad ruling that has occured under the AIA

I do not believe you understand the risks here sir, timing of rulings matters as well.

WDDD holders are more levered to the CAFC than they know and THAT was my point