Torture waiting but Apple and especially Samsung owe BILLIONS. Applethree result over due and cant be tossed based on HJS knows VHC won clean again. Apple must pay this time....
Why didn't I sell YEARS ago at $42 and buy back YEARS later for...
You gotta love retail investors. How many times have they been burned chasing this stock. It's been over 7 months waiting on the judge to ratify this verdict. The longer this goes w/o the ruling imo the worse it is for vhc and yet all the lemmings bid this stock up knowing that apple throws it back in their face every single time yet here they are again. Am I the only one that sees a potential problem here with no ruling when he said he wanted to fast track this after he threw out the original verdict?
SCOTUS finally brings sanity to this patent troll business. Read the TC Heartland v. Kraft opinion and weep, losers. It's over for companies like Virnetx. No more shopping your case to East Texas.
If it were a criminal trial Apple would have left the courtroom in cuffs instead of being free to continue their criminal activities.
Looks like the VirnetX legal team is set to pull off another big win. Back to $20?
wow... 3.70... I sold June 16 4$ calls
I hope they win this one
So what is happening? Is there EVER going to be finality within my lifetime?
FYI. Qualcomm taking Apple to court over nonpayment of royalties and license fees. Obama and the Clintons got it all. Apple needs to pay. $900 billion in the bank.
Bin in this from $3 to $42 and everywhere between. about 40k @ avg ops of ~$16....Will i ever get my original investment back? let alumna return worthy of the risk?
any body worried yet?????.....who in their right mind could worry...????.....not the long standing idiots.....
Carson L. Silkey
Any ideas regarding the NASA project/deal with Credit Department???
"Apple unsuccessfully challenged VirnetX’s claims in the infringement litigation. The district court entered a judgment that Apple failed to prove invalidity of the relevant claims of the ’504 and the ’211 patents; this Court affirmed that holding; and Apple did not seek a writ of certiorari from that decision. As a result, section 317(b) forbids Apple from continuing to challenge those claims through inter partes reexamination."