Perfect for the summation! Hopefully Cawley will use it !!!
Tampa the Great:
"He did demonstrate the die size and transistor count of D2D relative to entire chip. Isn't that the benefit?"
Croak - You've been bashing since this stock was way under a dollar. Just ten days ago, on 10/11, you boastfully posted that you were still short; Now you expect us to believe that within two days of that post you covered right before the verdict; One last lie, eh? Can't teach an old frog a new trick I guess.
OB - It could be both.
We know at least two things about the exhibit:
1) It's relevant and probative beyond any alleged prejudice to the phase two issues of damages and/or wilfulness, as there is no request or caveat as to admissibility in Q's motion;
2) Q's motion states "Exhibit PX598 reflects information concerning Qualcomm’s and the third party’s business strategy, customer pricing, sales data, and product schedules."
Q's motion is based on P possibly introducing this evidence. So either Q opened the door for redirect and they know it, or P may plan to call another witness, of Q knows they will be opening the door with their rebuttal case.
Again: VRNG LOST on laches for ALL PRIOR DAMAGE; patents weren't the "Holy Grail" for Google and there were likely easy workarounds; also no willful; TOTALLY DIF FACTS - GET LOST SHORTY
VRNG. Won patent infringement case against Google.
Hmmm, wouldn't a presentation to Verizon likely include detailed analysis of download efficiency? Most data moves down from the web, as opposed to up from the device ... no wonder Q makes a "prejudicial" objection here
according to pacer, Q wants to clear the court room today when PX598 is displayed/discussed ... sounds like it could be a killer; maybe Apple pricing with something regarding d2d implicit or explicit value proposition
OB - If you are referring to the bears, they're likely licking their wounds, but will cycle back in as long as they can keep below margin call territory.
For Jihad-Boy's fund, we could be getting close, hence no Fud.
Farmwald's threshold is likely much higher. I think he's underwater now, but might not get a call he can't handle unless it hits $20, perhaps even considerably higher.
So that's Farmy, States, BJ, Croak, Pump, etc. They'll all be with us teaching revised history 101 and putting a negative spin on everything for awhile, imo
That is because the judge found laches and VRNG is the one who has to appeal; of course, no willful; not key to GOOG's success like the "Holy Grail" in this case; and probably easy workarounds too ... totally different facts
If Q thinks they are better negotiators than litigators (how could they be worse), now is the time ... court recessed at noon until Monday; Jury probably gets Phase Two on Monday afternoon and may take about 5 min to bring Q in as "guilty" for the max no possibility of parole ... that gives Jacobs et al the weekend to make his deal: If it happens, I hope it includes d2p licensing and equity, but not a buyout
Sure, bonk -
Great appellate strategy by Qualcomm to not put on a case!
After the judge's finding of facts as to willfulness and Rule 9 (frivolousness-Sterne), the appellate court will be even less willing to help Shredvauld then they were when he was at Scambus.
And when Jihad-Boy's fund blows-up on this short and they investigate who his clients are (al Qaeda), lot's of luck, pal!!!
Part Deux: Not only are there all the other receiver infringers to collect from, but there must be d2p infringers out there too.
d2p embodiments in the patents demonstrate that a PA can be utilized, even if not necessary.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if Tx infringers are masking it with PAs, exactly like Qualcomm with "dbl bal. mixers" and caps labeled "Tx Jammer"
Regardless of the damage award, the Phase One verdict makes PV a potentially significant player in RF IP. What should they do now?
Here are my ideas:
1) Change the name (perhaps "Direct-to-Data"; Ticker "DTOD").
2) Kick JP upstairs to Chairman only.
3) Hire a engineer with top-flight credentials and industry respect as CEO.
4) Hire a COO with a JD (Qualcomm had trained attorney as COO for its highest growth years).
5) Bifurcate engineering - Creative team run by Sorrells, Rawlins, et al.; and ramp-up conventional design teams focused on baseband integration, etc.
6) Upgrade CFO, IR and Sales - executives with proven track records.
7) New blood on board related to major investors (GEM) and future major investors; of course, include "roundermatt" as lead independent director
Verdict sheet is up on pacer ... PV made it a little interesting in that their press release did confirm some of the more detailed the press reports, but it's all there: No patent-in-suit invalid; every accused part infringed; and infringement found for every asserted claim.
I did love that "guilty" instead of "liable" in the press release though ... it reminded me of all the times I thought to myself I might be wrong about the technology because these reading and listening to management over the years made be constantly ask myself - "could these cornball-goofballs actually achieved the greatest RF discovery in the last century"?
Now we know the answer, and it's YUP!
a little birdie told me to watch for big short covering when it starts coming through those unfortunate Farmwald bagholders at Morgan Stanley
news and trades now hitting the "broad tape"; mm's will let you know when long-time large shorts start trying to purchase; for now they are just trying to meet public demand and going short themselves; soon they will be starting manipulating rumors, p-o'ing their own brokers - these games never change
Sounds like McKool really wanted that jury to have Fox's schematic; so much so that they were trying to get the enemy's whole un-admitted report admitted late, just so the jury could work with it. It's likely the professional consultants interpreted this as meaning the jury wanted to work claim-by-claim on infringement with the visual, and that therefore a finding of at least one claim infringed was likely. This would explain the PRKR spike
States - The judge made a well-reasoned decision based on criteria never expressed by Farmy or anyone else on this board.
I still think the 1999 offer will be presented as evidence of willful, if we get to phase 2.
NBS and other theories are also alive for a moon-shot, but let's look at phase 2, without NBS, etc:
If indirect and willful remain in play, and strict Via criteria are used, that still gets it to at least $50 million times 3 plus fees, validation of the technology and a license with #1 (Q).
Since Q didn't put on an infringement rebuttal and would be paying P's fees, an appeal is less likely (Q might also want to avoid a cross-appeal).
Finally, I haven't seen the VIA contract and there is no way, imo, for anyone but the parties to know how damage might be calculated from 2006-2007 and for any period after the VIA license was canceled or if, based on Q numbers, it would have reached any limitation that might be in that contract ... and that all assumes no NBS.
So even under that scenario, PV, with its loss-carry-forward, could have upwards of $200 million in the bank and a very promising future ... using the RMBS circa 2006 valuation (similar cash and contemporaneous perceived prospects), it still gets you to a valuation roughly 15x of where we stand today.
trub: there's no rebuttal to the claims, either, and I doubt the cross by Q could have provided enough information to the jury to make a distinction as to non-infringement of specific claims ... this is like an accused criminal not taking the stand, and if even one juror is knowledgeable enough to explain that parallel inference to the others and/or if they are all p-o'd enough by the e-mails, I doubt they'll put in much time distinguishing the claims Qualcomm made no affirmative effort to distinguish with any evidence or testimony.