Replies to post #24341 on Worlds Inc (WDDD)

[DDobserver]

If I am understanding the concerns correctly I ask myself why. Has the words of Supreme Court Justice Roberts been considered? It appears his words well over a year ago regarding the Supreme Court intervention to those that define the law as they see fit as opposed to enforcing laws as they are written have been heeded. If one is patient all of this back and forth speculation will prove to be pointless.

[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

[StockAlphaDave]

THE RECENT VHC RULINGS AT THE CAFC DID NOT OVERTURN VALID CLAIMS

Links here

http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/16-1211.Opinion.12-7-2016.1.PDF

http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/16-1480.Opinion.12-7-2016.1.PDF

http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1934.Opinion.12-8-2016.1.PDF


THEY (CAFC) DID NOT OVERTURN VALID CLAIMS THEY CONCURRED WITH PTAB FINDINGS ON INVALIDITY- THIS IS A MATERIAL ISSUE / DIFFERENCE IN THE TWO CASES

SO LETS USE FACTS FRIEND NOT UNRELATED CASES SUGGESTING THAT THE ISSUES ARE THE SAME AS THEY ARE 100% NOT THE SAME

WE HAVE PTAB VALIDATED CLAIMS THAT WOULD NEED TO BE OVERTURNED. VHC HAD PTAB KILLED CLAIMS AND PATENTS THEY WERE LOOKING TO REVERSE WITH NO VALID CLAIMS

THESE ARE TWO EXTREMELY DIFFERENT SITUATIONS

1. VRNG had its district court win overturned on Alice which has since been limited in its effectiveness to kill patents and reined in as stated

2. VHC had patents KILLLED AT THE PTAB AND THE RULING WAS AFFIRMED BY THE CAFC

IGNORING A MATERIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE TWO CASE SUCH AS THAT FACT IS QUITE POOR DILIGENCE IN MY VIEW

AGAIN

1. We have ptab validated claims and want additional overturned - my whole argument has been based on the fact that the ptab is the high hurdle and we at least have some claims through, thus only upside left as the CAFC uses a more patent holder friendly claim construction. The counter argument which has now been proven faulty was Wallach is a software killer look what he did to vhc- well;

2. Vhc had no valid claims and wanted that reversed - that is not the same situation or even close to what we are facing

By logical conclusion ( as I said prior) find some stats on how many PTAB VALIDATED CLAIMS HAVE BEEN OVERTURNED BY THE CAFC

THE COMPARISON OF THE TWO CASES IS COMPLETELY BASELESS

[ShadowSpy69]

Exactly!

Thank you for this! Everyone needs to understand this period. It doesn't matter what side of the fence you're on....