Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Microsoft Corporation Message Board

princetonatty44 21 posts  |  Last Activity: Feb 4, 2016 10:32 AM Member since: Jan 24, 2013
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • princetonatty44 by princetonatty44 Feb 4, 2016 10:12 AM Flag

    VirnetX is easily the shining star "patent play" of 2016. There is a lot more to come as this win can be seen as the vindication of an IP Justice system that actually worked this time. Congrats to new and old shareholders...

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • Reply to

    Lets see this India Mart deal

    by ncbeltwaybound Jan 26, 2016 10:08 AM
    princetonatty44 princetonatty44 Jan 26, 2016 10:40 AM Flag

    @Nc There is no way to know what the payment, if any, will be. It's assumed that Vringo would have accepted a similar arrangement that was made with ZTE over a pro-rata computation of infringement.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • IndiaMart possibly settled in India Friday as the case is now showing dismissed in an Indian court as of Friday. Indiamart sells both in India and the EU with its online sites. Indiamart is a private company but total sales are estimated at $10 billion US.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • They can easily buy 1 million shares and send this to $5.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • Based off existing cash and the planned ZTE settlement of December 2015 Vringo is trading for less than cash.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • princetonatty44 princetonatty44 Dec 14, 2015 12:51 PM Flag

    The PTAB can be over ruled by the Federal court. However both Worlds and Activision have agreed to be bound by its decision.

    Sentiment: Hold

  • princetonatty44 princetonatty44 Dec 14, 2015 10:22 AM Flag

    Worlds and Activision have agreed to stay the Trial for the patent infringement suit pending the decision of the PTAB Bungie vs. Worlds trial. Both Worlds and Activision agree to hold off litigation until then. No trial on Feb 1.

    Sentiment: Hold

  • Bloodletting will stop with Worlds vs. Activision until August 2016 when the trial for the Bungie action is heard by the PTAB. Worlds buys more time. Unsigned order was logged on Thursday in Pacer.

    Sentiment: Hold

  • NDRC Meeting is now in Shenzhen ZTE vs. Vringo in China. Decision could be rapid as Chinese regulator is well briefed on this issue.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • Reply to

    Concerns

    by princetonatty44 Dec 2, 2015 10:36 AM
    princetonatty44 princetonatty44 Dec 2, 2015 11:58 AM Flag

    This case, (and others) has played out 100% in the public's view by design. The CEO has given numerous interviews and has never hesitated to offer guidance in these public releases. I see no compelling reason why he would stop now, especially since the common has fallen substantially.

    Sentiment: Hold

  • Reply to

    Concerns

    by princetonatty44 Dec 2, 2015 10:36 AM
    princetonatty44 princetonatty44 Dec 2, 2015 11:43 AM Flag

    @Alphadawg43 I'm reserving time for Worlds to release a statement before I comment further.

    Sentiment: Hold

  • princetonatty44 by princetonatty44 Dec 2, 2015 10:36 AM Flag

    In light of the challenge by Bungie and the decision by the PTAB I'm surprised Worlds has not released a statement. My first question leads to why Worlds counsel failed to brief the court fully on World Chat and how that operates to counter the Funkhousen Prior Art. I cant believe that Counsel felt so strongly to stand solely on the "determining" aspect of the patent. There's several more questions I have, but Worlds owes investors a thoughtful statement on the direction this is going, at the very least.

    Sentiment: Hold

  • Activision Blizzard response to Supplemental uses the Generic Equipment expressed in the example as the distinguishing point that should differentiate Plaintiff example from Worlds. Indeed a Generic controller and share screen was unconvincing to overturn equally as Worlds Server and Controller are. Activisions argument is not compelling and fails to differentiate the Supplemental example from Worlds.

    "Plaintiff has pointed to sections of the '124 Patent specification and the patent's prosecution history indicating that the patent is designed to solve a problem particular to the realm of multi-player gaming. (See Opp'n;
    Steussy Decl., Exs. 2-4.) Defendant has failed to adequately address this key distinction.Even if every software component and piece of hardware recited in the '124 Patent claims were
    "purely functional and generic," however, the claims would not necessarily be patent-ineligible.
    Indeed, the proposition that a court should "dissect the claims into old and new elements and then
    [] ignore the presence of the old elements in the analysis" was specifically rejected by the
    Supreme Court in Diamond v. Diehr. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188."

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • princetonatty44 princetonatty44 Nov 18, 2015 7:15 PM Flag

    Respectfully there are over 100 million shares in the public float and I'm sure you can agree, that not all volume today was selling. To be certain we were buyers today. The market today was probably less than 1/2 % and I was very happy that the 1/2% Market failed to agree with me, not knowing whether they who sold had any idea of the ruling. To be sure that's the reason why I posted my comments after hours:)

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • This is not serving the abstract idea of advertising. This is answering a Scientific problem. While not the only reason it does serve to separate Worlds from Alice v. CLS. This is why we were buyers today.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • Relevant highlighted passages of the Order for Judge Caspar to review;
    With this understanding of the goals of the '124 Patent, Defendant has failed to meet its burden
    of establishing that the '124 Patent is "directed to an abstract idea." The parties appear to agree
    that the '124 Patent is directed to the "idea of multi-player gaming using a hand-held controller that
    has a display screen where the players are also in front of a shared display." (See Opp'n 12-13;
    Reply 1.) Defendant has not pointed to any authority compelling the conclusion that such an idea,
    which is by definition limited to the field of multi-player gaming and which requires the use of
    multiple hardware components—unlike the claims in Bilski and Alice which, at least in theory,
    could be performed without a computer—is "abstract" within the meaning of Section 101.
    Moreover, Defendant's argument that Plaintiff "does not actually explain how any of the
    components identified by [Defendant] are not generic, let alone why any of those components
    actually make the claim less abstract under Step One" misreads Supreme Court and Federal
    Circuit precedent, which make clear that "recitation of generic computer limitations does not
    make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible," but do not broadly hold that courts must "strip
    away" each claim element that recites hardware containing computing elements, such as a video
    game controller, when performing step one of the Alice/Mayo test. DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at
    1256 (emphasis added). Accordingly, Defendant has failed to meet its burden of proving that the
    '124 Patent claims are "directed to an abstract idea."
    Although Defendant
    argues that the claims of the '124 Patent are directed to "a system that enables a basic method
    of organization of human activity—interactive game-playing with multiple people—on generic
    hardware," such a characterization both ignores the stated purpose of the patented invention and
    the limitations of the claims themselves. The Court declines the invitation to read Section 101 so
    broadly as to have it "swallow all of patent law." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S.
    at —, 132 S. Ct. at 1293-94).2With respect to Defendant's concern that "the claims risk potentially preempting the
    concept of multi-player gaming with a shared display broadly" and might "jeopardize future
    innovation disproportionately 'relative to the contribution of the inventor'" (Mot. 14), other
    patentability doctrines—such as anticipation (35 U.S.C. section 102), obviousness (35
    U.S.C. section 103), and enablement or written description (35 U.S.C. section 112)—are
    better equipped to determine the scope of the patentee's invention and whether the patent
    actually claims that invention. See 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, 112. These doctrines, which
    "serve a critical role in adjusting the tension, ever present in patent law, between
    stimulating innovation by protecting inventors and impeding progress by granting patents
    when not justified by the statutory design," play a larger role in ensuring an invention is
    patentable than does the "threshold test" that is Section 101. Bilski, 561 U.S. at 609, 602.The Court notes that the idea underlying the patent at issue in DDR Holdings—keeping a website
    user on a site when the user clicks an ad—is more easily characterized as "abstract" than the one
    underlying the '124 Patent. Notwithstanding the possibility that patent was "directed to" such an
    abstract idea, the Federal Circuit found the claims at issue to pass muster under Section 101 by
    examining both the purpose of the patent at issue, determining that the patent solves a problem
    unique to the computer field, and finding that the risk of pre-emption was minimal in light of specific
    additional limitations placed on the invention. Id. at 1259. Similarly here, Plaintiff has pointed to
    sections of the '124 Patent specification and the patent's prosecution history indicating that the
    patent is designed to solve a problem particular to the realm of multi-player gaming. (See Opp'n;
    Steussy Decl., Exs. 2-4.) Defendant has failed to adequately address this key distinction.Even if every software component and piece of hardware recited in the '124 Patent claims were
    "purely functional and generic," however, the claims would not necessarily be patent-ineligible.
    Indeed, the proposition that a court should "dissect the claims into old and new elements and then
    [] ignore the presence of the old elements in the analysis" was specifically rejected by the
    Supreme Court in Diamond v. Diehr. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188. Moreover, the Supreme Court
    instructs that courts ask whether the limitations, "considered both individually and 'as an ordered
    combination,' ' transform the nature of the claim' into a patent-eligible application." Alice, 134 S.
    Ct. at 2355 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at —, 132 S. Ct. at 1298, 1297). In Alice, the Supreme Court
    held that the computer components at issue "ad[ded] nothing . . . that is not already present when
    the steps are considered separately" because they "do not, for example, purport to improve the
    functioning of the computer itself . . . [n]or do they effect an improvement in any other technology
    or technical field." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (internal citations omitted). Here, by contrast, the
    specification and file history of the '124 Patent indicate that the individual components of the
    claimed system operate together to improve the functioning of multi-player gaming systems in a
    manner that was sufficiently novel to satisfy the Patent and Trademark Office Examiner. (See
    Steussy Decl., Exs. 2-5.) Defendant has failed offer an argument as to why Diehr does not control
    in this instance.
    III. RULING
    For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Audience Entertainment LLC's Motion to Dismiss.
    Defendant has fourteen (14) days from the issuance of this Order to file an Answer.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    Page 12

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • This was a fantastic buying opportunity for those who read the Notice of supplemental Authority. The case in California Federal Court Timeplay v Audience was near copy cat to Worlds case.
    Timeplay, Inc. v. Audience Entertainment LLC, CV 15:05202
    (C.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2015) (Order Denying Motion to Dismiss) (attached as Exhibit A), the U.S.
    District Court for the Central District of California denied defendant Audience Entertainment’s
    challenge to a client-server gaming patent under Section 101. The asserted patent was “directed
    to systems that permit multiple users to play a game on a primary game display using handheld
    game controllers that have interactive secondary displays.” Id. at *1. Under Mayo Step 1, the
    court explained, “Defendant has not pointed to any authority compelling the conclusion that such
    an idea, which is by definition limited to the field of multi-player gaming and which requires the
    use of multiple hardware components … is ‘abstract’ within the meaning of Section 101.” Id. at
    *8 (emphasis added).
    The court also rejected Audience Entertainment’s Step 2 argument that Timeplay did not
    explain how any of the components were “not generic, let alone why any of those components
    Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 195 Filed 11/18/15 Page 1 of 3
    2
    actually make the claim less abstract under Step One.” Id. The court found that Audience
    Entertainment “misread Supreme Court and Federal Circuit precedent [which] … do not broadly
    hold that courts must ‘strip away’ each claim element that recites hardware containing
    computing elements, such as a video game controller, when performing step one of the
    Alice/Mayo test.” Id. The court explained that, under Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981),
    and DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com, 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the asserted claims, when
    taken in an ordered combination, covered patent-eligible subject matter. Id. at *12. In particular,
    the court explained, “the specification and file history of the ‘124 Patent indicate that the
    individual components of the claimed system operate together to improve the functioning of
    multi-player gaming systems in a manner that was sufficiently novel to satisfy the Patent and
    Trademark Office Examiner.” Id. These novel aspects contributed to the court’s refusal to
    characterize the asserted patent under Alice/Mayo as “claiming the ‘buildin[g] block[s] of human
    ingenuity’ or ‘disproportionately tying up the use of’ any underlying abstract idea.” Id. at *9. As
    such, the court held that the claim elements contained an inventive concept.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • princetonatty44 princetonatty44 Nov 16, 2015 4:56 PM Flag

    No doubt Bungie is the Proxy.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • No updates today.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

MSFT
49.69-0.02(-0.04%)Feb 11 4:00 PMEST