Be careful all.
IMO, There will likely be a lot of manipulation games played while waiting for events.
I see it as speculation the last two months, as well as technical response to being oversold. The news item was Friday, now its in the rumor stage again after a nice run up from double bottoms at .75 and .79. The 50 DMA is providing some support with the rise of the 20, but still well off the 200. I just wouldn't be surprised to see money manipulate this back under a buck with a lengthy decision, unless we find out sooner rather than later that they knocked the ball out of the park on Friday. Market money is greedy. They play with the minds of the typical retail investor while really trying to make the money on both sides of the coin..... the rise and the falls.
One thing I wonder is, why didn't Anthony make a buy when this was down in the .70's?
The Medical Device Manufacturers Association, which filed its amicus brief with content application developer i4i Limited Partnership, said that the panel’s decision could “render the patent system unpredictable and inhospitable to the massive investment needed to spur invention,” and seconded the call for a rehearing.
In the case, Vringo had accused Google, AOL, IAC Search & Media Inc. and others of infringing its patents on a ranking system used in Internet search engines that places high-quality ads in the best possible position to generate substantial revenue.
The jury was asked to make factual determinations on whether the prior art disclosed all the elements of the patents. It concluded that the patents were different from what existed in the art and that several other considerations indicated the patents were not obvious.
As a result, the jury found in 2012 that the patents were valid and that all the defendants infringed. It set damages at $15.8 million against Google, $7.9 million against AOL and $6.65 million against IAC. Two other defendants, Gannett Co. Inc. and Target Corp., received much smaller penalties.
The infringement verdict was wiped out by the Federal Circuit, which held in a split, unsigned decision that both patents were obvious. The majority wrote that "no reasonable jury could conclude otherwise."
Circuit Judge Raymond T. Chen dissented, writing that the decision failed to give sufficient deference to the jury's findings and that "the majority’s use of common sense to bridge the gap between the prior art and the claims is unsupported by sufficient evidence and reasoning."
Citing the dissent, Vringo's en banc petition asked the court to make clear that the Federal Circuit must defer to jury decisions on factual issues related to obviousness and cannot allow its own interpretation of "common sense" to trump the jury's.
The amicus briefs submitted on Wednesday came just a few days after the nonprofit Boston Patent Law Association urged
He's the Shareholder's representative for creating Shareholder value?????????????????????
Shoot, nobody dumps this stock more than him on a pump!!!
He's doing fine between his salary and selling of options awarded to him
This company needs a new leader!
30-Sep-14 28,385 VRNG Automatic Sale at $0.96 per share. (Proceeds of $27,249)
30-Jun-14 28,385 VRNG Automatic Sale at $3.41 per share. (Proceeds of $96,792)
31-Mar-14 28,385 VRNG Automatic Sale at $3.49 per share. (Proceeds of $99,063)
29-Jan-14 200,000 VRNG Automatic Sale at $5.15 per share. (Proceeds of $1,030,000)
29-Jan-14 200,000 VRNG Option Exercise at $0.96 - $1.65 per share.
31-Dec-13 28,385 VRNG Sale at $2.95 per share. (Proceeds of $83,735)
30-Sep-13 28,385 VRNG Sale at $2.88 per share. (Proceeds of $81,748)
1-Jul-13 14,584 VRNG Sale at $3.10 per share. (Proceeds of $45,210)
26-Apr-13 21,094 VRNG Sale at $2.87 per share. (Proceeds of $60,539)
11-Feb-13 175,000 VRNG Acquisition (Non Open Market) at $0 per share.
28-Jan-13 42,188 VRNG Sale at $3.22 per share. (Proceeds of $135,845)
6-Nov-12 5,500 VRNG Sale at $4.23 per share. (Proceeds of $23,265)
31-Oct-12 2,000 VRNG Sale at $4.34 per share.(Proceeds of $8,680)
26-Oct-12 1,500 VRNG Sale at $4.05 per share.(Proceeds of $6,075)
25-Oct-12 1,500 VRNG Sale at $4.08 per share.(Proceeds of $6,120)
23-Oct-12 1,000 VRNG Sale at $4.25 per share. (Proceeds of $4,250)
15-Oct-12 4,000 VRNG Sale at $4.63 per share. (Proceeds of $18,520)
8-Oct- 12 4,000 VRNG Sale at $5.29 per share.(Proceeds of $21,160)
This selling is immaterial and means nothing.
The dumping that took place on the jump to 5+ wasn't tho.
If your promoting signs in this factor, thats what you should be watching for.
When Shares May Be Loaned Out:
Even if you yourself don't do any short-selling from your "margin account", shares in it may be subject to loan by the brokerage. According to a FINRA spokeswoman, a brokerage may loan out shares in a margin
accounts worth up to 140% of the value of the outstanding margin loan. If a margin account was established but no margin loan was ever taken, shares in the account may not be loaned out. However, if a margin loan was taken out at some point and fully repaid, the brokerage may still have the right to borrow shares from the account.
Shares held in a "conventional account", by contrast, may not be loaned out by the brokerage. Therefore, if you have any concerns about your brokerage loaning out your shares--even if it just doesn't feel right to you--it's best to hold those shares in a cash account. It should also be noted that mutual funds may engage in security lending as well, which we'll look at in an upcoming Short Answer column.
Margin accounts and short-selling are not for novice investors, but even seasoned pros should read the terms of their brokerage agreements closely to understand how they work and to avoid any potential nasty surprises.
Blah, Blah, Blah
Says one thing, does another. And it's always self-motivated
Talk about a Pumping attempt. He must have another scheduled sale set up so he can get the best $ he can.
Unless news tomorrow, I think this opens lower and eventually works its way back down below the 50. If this strings out for a period, people who bought in the $1.20's plus are going to get frustrated like last time it dipped to mid .70's and the Manipulators will get people to bail with constant downward pressure.
Law360, New York (October 31, 2014, 2:04 PM ET) -- Several intellectual property academics and a medical device association urged the Federal Circuit to rethink its decision to invalidate two patents and elimiante a $30.5 million verdict against Google Inc. and others, claiming that the court should mull how much deference to give juries in such cases.
In two separate amicus briefs on Wednesday, the Medical Device Manufacturers Association and four intellectual property professors and lecturers asked the Federal Circuit to take up Vringo Inc. subsidiary I/P Engine Inc.'s bid for en banc rehearing of the its August decision that nixed a $30 million judgment against Google, AOL Inc. and other companies and found Vringo's patents obvious.
The academics, who included Professor Michael Risch at Villanova University School of Law and Sean B. Seymore at Vanderbilt Law School, said that the case was an example of the court “marginalizing juries in patent cases,” which leads to “a neglect of Seventh Amendment jurisprudence” and a failure to promote settlements.
“The dissent rightfully criticized the panel for throwing out the jury’s hard work and comparative advantage,” the professors argued. “The court should thus grant rehearing en banc in this case so that it can deliberately consider the proper level of deference to be given such jury verdicts in obviousness determinations.”
Although not every jury recommendation should be accepted, a jury’s specific factual findings on obviousness should be “respected,” the professors said, particularly when the trial court adopts them. The professors therefore urged the Federal Circuit to reconsider the case, and weigh the correct level of deference to give jury verdicts with specific factual support for obviousness determinations.
I guess plead some kind of case for under-valued, but the court doesn't agree
And they don't either the way they dumped in a day to their legal limit extent on a 24 hour pump to $5
My opinion...Just games played with technicals. Otherwise someone's going to jail.
And after a 7 day 35-40% pullback.
I think there's just not as much to gain here……at .75 to .85 cents? To what extent does the gain offset the risk here? I don't know what upside there is, but from where this was to where it is now? Shorts still here are late to the party, or just not very good.
Don't know how it will hold tho. Buy the rumor, sell the news. Kinda where were at now. They'll short again when they think its right to bring it back down to some level. And the company is silent until reporting ~11/15
That's the way the big Shorts operate. In fact I think they continued buying yesterday after the announcement to set up this. I also believe there were a few guised posters here yesterday trying to fuel some buying at the higher levels as part of this too.
We are likely back in a waiting period with downside pressure.
The company is silent for the next 45 days.
Depending on how things go from here, if favorable…..?, I think there's a good chance our bottom is in.
Yesterday a glimpse of what to expect in a month? And that was just on anticipation of a ruling.
I believe Yes
But it was not an actual true Market valuation move
It's all specialized coordinated "Manipulation" by Intelligence and Money, so the move up was not only exaggerated, it was a set up.
The months of red every day on no news, and then an overly exaggerated 1-Day move to the upside.
There were even people here that thought something was up and someone had inside info
The last 2 1/2 months thru yesterday have been well thought out manipulation to play with the average investor's head and emotions and ultimately steal money legally under the guise of "market risk".
IMO anyway, and that's what I remind myself daily.