VRNG News 08/15/2014 22:32:22 $VRNG
Reversing Trial Court For error
Would some trial lawyer respond to this? I've been out of law school for over 50 years and had little trial experience. I recall however that appellate courts have to give juriy opinions great deference and where an agency has opined as the Patent office here has more than once, that the courts have to give that even greater weight. So now we have the CAFC knowing more about patent law than the patent office?? If the above is correct, IMO en banc is clearly warranted here and it will reverse the appellate court. Less
Sentiment: Hold
vringo bought some old patents and they thought they were gonna make billions suing ?
So did we still win some money as before but lost the later part? Or did it all just go to shit? After being here for years this is bs.
Unfortunately this is the down fall of USA. I don't really care I'm a cunuck, and at a moments notice I will be out of this messed up us, sadly. gl.
I think it's now illegal to say "God Bless" yes words we used to form our nation!
really 1,50? or 1,20?
So true. god bless America. Anybody who knows anything about, what really goes on, in our beloved gov., Knows it isn't pretty.
And once again the little guy loses. I do pray their is some justice, to prevail. glta
Nice end of day close and ah
I will heed your advice, and thanks for the info... "Chen +7", sounds like a Football Spread! LOL!
Glad to see you got out when you did, wish I had.
But, that's investing, I'll make it up somewhere else, maybe back here when it drops below half a buck, with the right news.
A great weekend to ya JJ, and anybody else reading this post.
Remember folks, "It's only money!" It can make your life easier with more, but it make you think about it more when you don't!
glen
I "think" there are 14 active judges on CAFC, but would have to look again to confirm. That's my recollection, but don't bank on that.
glengold47 Friday, 08/15/14 08:06:41 PM
Re: JJSeabrook post# 54276
Post # of 54319
Thanks for posting the Rule 35, JJS.
Can I pose you a question and ask how many judges would have to agree in this district if it were to come to a vote to en banc the ruling? Just trying to see some light at the end of this tunnel as 2 of the judges are already opposed! What a day this turned out to be!
Thanks again,
glen
When you find one, let me know, as I feel the same way.
IMHO, This is dead money until the court en banc is settled, maybe a bounce around that time, but I have recently experienced Parkervision and I didn't like the way that turned out.
GLTU,
glen
Thanks for posting the Rule 35, JJS.
Can I pose you a question and ask how many judges would have to agree in this district if it were to come to a vote to en banc the ruling? Just trying to see some light at the end of this tunnel as 2 of the judges are already opposed! What a day this turned out to be!
Thanks again,
glen
just added .94's VRNG ...I think we see 1.50 next week!
jmo
With CAFC there are NEVER any guarantees. They are ONE of the Federal Appellate Courts in this nation that are very unique, and they can get off the wall more than any other, other than the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Those SOBs are CRAZY! LOL CAFC comes out of left field on a basis that is NOT irregular.
I thought Chen to be favorable to VRNG, and I thought Mayer was against VRNG in the oral argument...just gut. I exited my position completely on June 19th. Wallach asked a stupid ass question basically unrelated at all to VRNG or GOOG that gave me concern during oral argument. I pointed it out, but don't remember what it was. That made me think Mayer was going to go the wrong way AGAIN, as he did in his most recent previous dissent, and then Wallach being there made me uneasy. I felt okay with Chen, but due to the other 2 I exited.
However, I WAS going to rebuy some within the next couple of weeks. The timing of the ruling worked very good for me as I figured it would be another couple weeks before it came out. Luck! I'll take it!
JJ
econ1 Friday, 08/15/14 05:03:10 PM
Re: JJSeabrook post# 54301
Post # of 54313
JJ & all - After reading the verdict, I think an en banc is in the cards. Chen's dissenting opinion is what will sway those guys to do en banc. His statements and logic backing up his opinion are easier to hang one's hat on vs the other two. I think what really got to them (as one in fact mentioed) was the vast implications to advertising $$ if patent allowed. Just my 2 cents.
How do you figure?
Let's do the math, even if you just value the company at cash on hand the share price should be around $2.90.
Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Google and against VRNG.
$VRNG was only valued by speculation of winning the lawsuit against Google. Once they lost this company is back to nothing. Will bounce after the fall is over though, bank on it. Time it well folks and you should see a nice gain.
Can someone inform me what happened here? Why down 72%?
Reversing Trial Court For error
Would some trial lawyer respond to this? I've been out of law school for over 50 years and had little trial experience. I recall however that appellate courts have to give juriy opinions great deference and where an agency has opined as the Patent office here has more than once, that the courts have to give that even greater weight. So now we have the CAFC knowing more about patent law than the patent office?? If the above is correct, IMO en banc is clearly warranted here and it will reverse the appellate court. Less
Sentiment: Hold
vringo bought some old patents and they thought they were gonna make billions suing ?
So did we still win some money as before but lost the later part? Or did it all just go to shit? After being here for years this is bs.
Unfortunately this is the down fall of USA. I don't really care I'm a cunuck, and at a moments notice I will be out of this messed up us, sadly. gl.
I think it's now illegal to say "God Bless" yes words we used to form our nation!
really 1,50? or 1,20?
So true. god bless America. Anybody who knows anything about, what really goes on, in our beloved gov., Knows it isn't pretty.
And once again the little guy loses. I do pray their is some justice, to prevail. glta
Nice end of day close and ah
I will heed your advice, and thanks for the info... "Chen +7", sounds like a Football Spread! LOL!
Glad to see you got out when you did, wish I had.
But, that's investing, I'll make it up somewhere else, maybe back here when it drops below half a buck, with the right news.
A great weekend to ya JJ, and anybody else reading this post.
Remember folks, "It's only money!" It can make your life easier with more, but it make you think about it more when you don't!
glen
I "think" there are 14 active judges on CAFC, but would have to look again to confirm. That's my recollection, but don't bank on that.
glengold47 Friday, 08/15/14 08:06:41 PM
Re: JJSeabrook post# 54276
Post # of 54319
Thanks for posting the Rule 35, JJS.
Can I pose you a question and ask how many judges would have to agree in this district if it were to come to a vote to en banc the ruling? Just trying to see some light at the end of this tunnel as 2 of the judges are already opposed! What a day this turned out to be!
Thanks again,
glen
When you find one, let me know, as I feel the same way.
IMHO, This is dead money until the court en banc is settled, maybe a bounce around that time, but I have recently experienced Parkervision and I didn't like the way that turned out.
GLTU,
glen
Thanks for posting the Rule 35, JJS.
Can I pose you a question and ask how many judges would have to agree in this district if it were to come to a vote to en banc the ruling? Just trying to see some light at the end of this tunnel as 2 of the judges are already opposed! What a day this turned out to be!
Thanks again,
glen
just added .94's VRNG ...I think we see 1.50 next week!
jmo
With CAFC there are NEVER any guarantees. They are ONE of the Federal Appellate Courts in this nation that are very unique, and they can get off the wall more than any other, other than the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Those SOBs are CRAZY! LOL CAFC comes out of left field on a basis that is NOT irregular.
I thought Chen to be favorable to VRNG, and I thought Mayer was against VRNG in the oral argument...just gut. I exited my position completely on June 19th. Wallach asked a stupid ass question basically unrelated at all to VRNG or GOOG that gave me concern during oral argument. I pointed it out, but don't remember what it was. That made me think Mayer was going to go the wrong way AGAIN, as he did in his most recent previous dissent, and then Wallach being there made me uneasy. I felt okay with Chen, but due to the other 2 I exited.
However, I WAS going to rebuy some within the next couple of weeks. The timing of the ruling worked very good for me as I figured it would be another couple weeks before it came out. Luck! I'll take it!
JJ
econ1 Friday, 08/15/14 05:03:10 PM
Re: JJSeabrook post# 54301
Post # of 54313
JJ & all - After reading the verdict, I think an en banc is in the cards. Chen's dissenting opinion is what will sway those guys to do en banc. His statements and logic backing up his opinion are easier to hang one's hat on vs the other two. I think what really got to them (as one in fact mentioed) was the vast implications to advertising $$ if patent allowed. Just my 2 cents.
How do you figure?
Let's do the math, even if you just value the company at cash on hand the share price should be around $2.90.
Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Google and against VRNG.
$VRNG was only valued by speculation of winning the lawsuit against Google. Once they lost this company is back to nothing. Will bounce after the fall is over though, bank on it. Time it well folks and you should see a nice gain.
Can someone inform me what happened here? Why down 72%?
