Replies to post #26094 on Worlds Inc (WDDD)

[22na22]

Would you mind sharing your analysis of this? I did some research about of F/RANDs but still am not 100% clear on the direct impact on WDDD v ATVI.

Seems like a F/RAND agreement would contrast the article posted suggesting 7%+ royalties, as that would be excessive.

[AlphaInvestor8]

I think you are missing the point - the question is not how much of a "%" of revenues should apply, that is rather easy to determine.

The issue is how much revenue will that % apply to?

Ie. With 6 claims vs 50 clearly the revenue number you multiply that % by is lower

the issue is 'materiality' of claims, ie how much revenue is DIRECTLY attributable to the remaining 6 claims

The damages are calculated by

"Revenue attributed to patent infringement X applicable % royalty rate"

Frand helps determine the applicable royalty rate

The point I made is no one here has any clue on that revenue attributed to patent infringement number so saying 300 mil is a misnomer and a guess. Only patent infringement experts who are used in court cases as expert witnesses could have any reasonable view on this.

As such, anyone here stating billions or 300 mil is simply guessing. And while that was fine when all claims were in play as the calc is much easier since you assume (given all the claims) the vast majority of revenues are affected, the whole equation changes when many claims are gone because you have to know the MATERIALITY of those remaining claims in order to have a reasonable and realistic view. While they can be large, they can also very easily have a minor affect on revenue and be immaterial.

This also goes to the point that I made in the past, perhaps WDDD is appealing BECAUSE the remaining claims are immaterial, no one addresses this legitimate probability. I am not saying that IS the case, but it certainly is plausible

End of the day, saying $300 mil has as much weight as me saying $5