So stupidly ridiculous on so many levels....This kind of bs simply paints the longs as irrational and only fuels the shorts to continue to mock Virnetx....
Such a lame response....This is a major obstacle for Apple in the 2nd suit...Of course, it changes nothing regarding the CAFC and the original suit. But, should CAFC affirm, Apple will not want to go to trial on this 2nd suit. Only a fool would dismiss HJD's pronouncement as nothing to be concerned about....There is no way that Apple's attorneys are as nonchalant as you....They fully understand that as a "matter of law" they will be determined to be willfully infringing on those claims that HJD has upheld.
Again, Tim Cook will not authorize negotiations until AFTER CAFC opines.....Nothing new there....But you are smoking rope to say this is not a negative for Apple.....They have watched PTAB deny RPX IPR and call Apple out as the party of interest.....They watched CAFC make a 4/25 citation that upheld Virnetx's reliable damages methodology....They now await New Bay drama.
And now they lost this "invalidity" defense......None of these is enough to send VHC soaring, by any means. But Apple is not winning in the courtroom, so far.
You have it backwards...CAFC decided this case back on Mar 3 or 4th....They are not going to be influenced by HJD's pronouncements on the 2nd trial.
I do not think you can conflate HJD's pronouncement with likelihood of imminent CAFC affirmation of Case #1....I highly doubt that the justices of the CAFC would speak or hint to a trial judge their thinking on an impending case...Highly unethical if not illegal. The "writing on the wall" only becomes ominous AFTER CAFC affirms....Before CAFC opines, Apple will continue to wait this out, content to see VHC stock stumble along near its 52 week lows and hope that the CAFC sees things "their way" regardless of how skimpy Apple's position may be.
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah.....Claims construction is fine.....You are such a lying sack of #$%$. Court implicitly upheld claims construction back on 4/25 when they UPHELD the damages methodology...You can't uphold damage methodology if the claims construction is flawed....
Of course, you will counter that this once in a lifetime exception is exactly what occurred. Stock is adrift because there are no institutional investors who dare to buy this stock ahead of CAFC...Therefore, volumes have become muted and just the smallest sell impulse can send the stock down by 30-50 cts in the blink of an eye.
Nevertheless, please continue your ceaseless prattle of legal analysis.
Where have all the players gone? Stock is now back down to its pre-Escalera name change.
What a horrible collection of assets and now a business plan that emphasizes overseas adventures.
Good thing WRES never bothered to partner with them on their Niobrara test well those years ago...Jeez
With outside markets getting slammed, VHC could easily slide into the 12s, and even $11 can't be ruled out...Nervous investors are not going to buy a stock like VHC and any kind of selling, from either longs looking to reduce equity exposure or from the shorts could knock down severely.
For now, the advantage continues to lie with the shorts
Two more points
Investors who decide to buy VHC after a successful affirmation will not be trying to replicate or beat the Russell index. How do you even begin to make such an arbitrary and wrongheaded statement....If a fund advertises itself to be a Russell index fund, then yes, they will buy Russell components....But your statement is spurious at best, and deceitful at worst.
Finally, read carefully the wording of the CAFC citation in the 4/25 case....They explicitly stated that they have upheld in similar instances, citing both i4i and Virnetx v Apple....They had only heard the Virnetx case 7 weeks prior to that 4/25 citation, and well past the oral arguments of the Apple v Motorola case which took place in Sept 2013....In other words, a case in which the decision was rendered back in Sept 2013 and whose opinion was being formulated/written by the time of the 3/3 oral argument of Virnetx v Apple so impressed the court (two of whose panelists were involved in both cases) with its logic/integrity that it told the litigants in Apple v Motorola that this is an example where we upheld.
To me, ospreysailors, that is black and white and NOT shades of gray.....
Virnetx can still lose this case...Stranger things have happened....But an affirmation changes the landscape with a tectonic shake greatly in favor of Virnetx.....
Where to begin with your lunacy.....Apple can choose not to offer the offending application as part of device but instead offer it as an add on.....If the "add on" Facetime feature continues to infringe on the Virnetx patent, they are right back to Square one....The correct answer is that they can simply remove the Facetime secure link feature and then not have a problem
Yes, they can appeal to SCOTUS.....Of course, if they do that and elect NOT to negotiate a global deal (as opposed to the US only suit they are currently fighting) they risk having 98 bp imposed on them if SCOTUS denies their application or finds against them....Moreover, you continue to ignore the consequences of the IMessage suit which has HJD as judge....Might summary judgment be rendered in that case after CAFC affirmation of this one? In your world, Apple continues to "win" despite further legal affirmation for Virnetx.
Samsung and MSFT have most definitely NOT taken licenses while Apple appeal has played out....If Virnetx prevails, the stage will change....Even Apple won't be able to ignore the fact that if it rolls the dice all the way to SCOTUS, it will have #$%$ away any chance to negotiate a lower rate than 98 bp....
Virnetx patents are far more than just establishing VPN.....And, if Virnetx is pushing such a hackneyed product as you claim, why did Apple lie to the court about the ease and cheapness of a workaround which was found severely wanting....Further, why did Apple choose to misrepresent to the PTAB that it was the "party of itnterest" in the IPR process? Surely if Virnetx were a worthless #$%$ troll, Apple would not have had to rely on such dirty tricks in this case.
But again, you will simply state ad nauseum that Apple's hands are clean and that Virnetx is barking up the wrong tree.....Yet, again, you have absolutely no reply for why the CAFC cited Virnetx v Apple in Apple v. Motorola as an example of using a "reliable methodology" to uphold damages.
8MM "air shares" have been created....At avg $20/sh, that is $160MM.....That is a drop in the bucket in terms of money sloshing through markets these days.
So, while the RCs may be abusive/illegal, it is not as though Virnetx has been able to unearth/unlock hundreds of millions of dollars worth of buyers to offset this "extra" supply.
RC action has slowed considerably in past weeks....If 50K shares are "air shares" on any given day, it is rather telling that there are no big buyers looking to gobble up such offerings.
If we subtract out the 8MM air shares, would VHC be substantially higher? Ahead of CAFC, I highly doubt it....Maybe high teens....
It is a precedential opinion....4 to 7 months is standard....We are only entering the 5th month now....This case is not nearly as important to the justice writing it as it is to Virnetx shareholders who have "everything" riding on the outcome. Simple as that.
If CAFC fully affirms, Apple has lost....Yes, they can appeal but the facts clearly show that their chances are dim, at best....At that point, they face "double jeopardy" on the Oct 2015 IMessage lawsuit....Talk about rolling the dice.....As for other licensees, here is the reality of the situation....Affirmation means that anybody who does not take a license will be WILLFULLY infringing as the patents are deemed valid "as a matter of law" by virtue of the CAFC affirmation....WILLFUL infringement leads to treble damages.
Virnetx patents apply to 4G-LTE A roll out.....That market kicks into gear in late 2015/2016. You are WILLFULLY ignoring these developments. Not to mention the fact that Apple risks having to pay 98 bp or more (remember, IMessage suit) when their sworn mortal enemy, Samsung, might negotiate 50/60/70 bp volume deal....At some point, Apple will carefully consider these risks/rewards.
Virnetx share price is where it is precisely because major institutional buying has been absent for quite some time....Clearly, the spike to $25 after the March judgment was met by HEAVY RC air shares which stunted the rally. But, upon a full affirmation (meaning, no partial remand), I strongly believe that institutional buyers will begin to buy aggressively in the 20s....At $25/share, company would be valued at $1.2 BN.....The lump sum payment from Apple alone could approach $1BN gross, or approx $650MM after deducting SAIC and lawyer fees....After taxes, that is approx $325MM or nearly $6/share....Then, it is a simple matter of estimating annual licensing revenues...You believe that Virnetx will not have any because they have never produced any in the past....Fine...But you completely ignore that with a CAFC victory in hand, Android players will probably finally be ready to take a license....Android dwarfs Apple....And we know that Apple license can produce $200-300MM/yr easily.
All very attainable IF CAFC affirms. Until then, VHC could see $12/11. So what
I agree 100%....Shorts are in control, for now....Virnetx's legal brief looks good. No doubt that Apple is probably aiding/abetting the shorts. And, their strategy has worked wonders, keeping VHC share price in check. As I have said, everybody should just ignore daily stock fluctuations and understand that there is no reason to expect any up movement in the shares. But, when it comes to legal matters, anything can happen. OJ was acquitted....Cisco defeated Virnetx. Chief Justice Rader (who was seemingly favorably disposed towards Virnetx) gets himself ousted from the Court. And the "bulls" ask why the stock is trading where it its.
Good summation, s11son
Hey, Bill.....How's your P&L coming on this wonderful stock.....Obviously, you must have some losses.
Or am I being Obvious?
Yours truly.....Da Captain
A full affirmation by CAFC will see Virnetx double from this level. You are dead wrong if you think a CAFC affirmation doesn't mean much....By definition, any other companies that refused to license from Virnetx would be guilty of "willful infringement" since the patents would be established as a "matter of law" by virtue of the CAFC affirmation.
Stock can easily double on affirmation as investors begin to anticipate Android licensing deals.
Your steadfast bearishness is almost as comical as the "blind faith" of the longs on this board.
Why would longs be selling now? Perhaps the fact that the "tape" action has been terrible, of late.
If Virnetx were such a "lock" buyers would be moving in to take advantage of this cheap cheap price. Yet, nobody has the cohones to make such a bold move.
The die hard longs and the #$%$ "shorts" all spout off, endlessly proclaiming either bankruptcy or "to the moon" skyrocketting for the stock.
I don't care to make any friends...I simply think it is fascinating to watch the "true believers" (both longs and shorts) make silly comments each and every day.....
Who the hell posts on a message board in order to gain friends? That is so so sad.
Unfortunately, anything less than unadulterated bullish or bearish outlook is met with dismay and derision....The world is almost never black and white.....99% of the time, it is some shade of grey.
Virnetx is all talk and no walk, as of today....With that simple fact, it is still rather amazing that the company sports a $600MM mkt cap....No revenues and no big licensing deals.
If investors "fear" the glass is less than half full, quite easy to see share price continue to slide ahead of CAFC. Rather elementary, mcoulter.
Don't dispute a word of what you said.....But until CAFC opines, Virnetx is adrift and has no sponsorship.
Of course KL misjudged Apple's tenacity....He was calling for licenses and an imminent listing on the NYSE well over one year ago....Not torching the guy...but he clearly did not foresee Apple fighting tooth and nail and refusing ever to concede a "fair" royalty rate to Virnetx.
If the CAFC affirms for VHC, all will be well....But the weight of legal evidence is MEANINGLESS to share price now....That is the simplest message of all.......The "shorts" are way ahead on the scoreboard and longs are left clinging to hopes that their legal brief will prevail at CAFC.
That's fine...But it is hardly a reason for seasoned institutional investors to invest in a company with no revenues, even if they won't run out of cash for several years.
Stock will continue to trend lower on listless volume as the "shorts" have withstood the 4/25 citation and the hoped for 6/30 Rader possibiility of a decision.....This case might not be decided for months, and each passing day will only bring about possible further frustration of "stale longs" and not pressure the "shorts" in the least bit.
As I said, turn off your monitor and enjoy the beach.....All this banter is just that....banter
Yeah....The shorts are winning, big time.....Virnetx is nothing but a legal outcome masquerading as a company....Victory and the legal warrant will become an operating company with a bright future....Remand, however, and it is "sayonara" to Virnetx.
Stop #$%$ at me for pointing out the obvious....Mr Market is telling you everything you need to know about the company right now....Even that favorable 4/25 citation has been fully digested and has been found wanting by the marketplace....Market could be wrong....But for now, Virnetx is a story that may come true.