VRNG Discussion Topics 08/17/2014 19:31:15 $VRNG
heres an intersting comment I found when I was reading about PRKR's options (they are in a similar boat to VRNG)
Quote:
ParkerVision has multiple options, including one that would lower its legal bill in exchange for "sharing a larger portion of any settlement or award."
what if VRNG strikes a deal with their lawyers to work on contingency for the SCOTUS and en banc appeals?
that way VRNG drastically reduces their cash bleed in exchange for some portion of the winnings.
given the price is as low as it is currently, a strategy like this would light a fire under the stock price because it eliminates any further further risk with respect to the GOOG case.
I mean you cant get any worse than a complete loss other than a complete loss + additional money wasted on additional legal fees.
I re-iterate, TRUE support line falls in the range .025-.55.
You can't patent technology that is already widely shared. Copyrights however can protect specific software from being identically cloned. That doesn't mean some other company can't write a program to do the same thing, which is what Google did. The appeals court was right to toss this patent into the meat grinder. It NEVER EVEN should have been approved! Google did not use any of Nokia's coding. You can't patent query based processing 'concepts' that are in WIDE USE!
RD2014, can you elaborate what the difference is?
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2430095-vring...ent-trolls
To ADD - This software should have been COPYRIGHTED, not PATENTED!
I think more appropriately, this patent never should have been approved. Query content extraction is common place, in today's web environment. I think it is a JOKE that it was EVEN APPROVED!
VRNG - TIMBERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!
"But finding fact is not the role of the CAFC.”
The chosen few now to hold all the power and law/ rules do not apply to them.
Well,this is Obamas America now... Innovation be damned and the elite be blessed ...
"If the CAFC's ruling stands, there will be severe, long-term consequences. It will discourage innovation, thereby harming the public interest, by weakening patent rights and creating great uncertainty as to whether patents can be enforced. It will unfairly upset the settled expectations not only of inventors but also of investors, licensees, and others who have played by the existing rules for decades."
Have an estimate on tangible book value?
This may sound ridiculous but based on this decision should we be writing our U.S. Senators and Congressman on the end of the U.S. Patent system as we know it?
This so called Appeals Court decision invalidates the United States Patent Trade Office! If there is no "En Banc" hearing it is solely because of Google's monies and influence over the judges!
That's very interesting. Looks like SCOTUS might need to step in and review these types of rulings.
Just crazy. Look for Mayer's comments. Unbelievable. Sounds like he's arguing with himself this time.
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/01/13/supreme-.../id=47392/
Unfortunately this has happened before. http://soverain.com/pdf/i4i_press_release.pdf
The good news is that the fact that it has happened before makes it more likely En banc or SCOTUS will happen. Supremes chose not to hear the soverain case, but it is my understanding that when issues come up again and again they must address it at some point to actually decide what the law is.
Are you serious? LMAO
Litigate them. I am sure they don't just sit on a shelf and collect dust.
Judge Mayer Raises 101 (In VRNG case) When IT Was Not An Issue in the Case: Other Panelists Don’t inject 101.
?August 15, 2014?David
heres an intersting comment I found when I was reading about PRKR's options (they are in a similar boat to VRNG)
Quote:
ParkerVision has multiple options, including one that would lower its legal bill in exchange for "sharing a larger portion of any settlement or award."
what if VRNG strikes a deal with their lawyers to work on contingency for the SCOTUS and en banc appeals?
that way VRNG drastically reduces their cash bleed in exchange for some portion of the winnings.
given the price is as low as it is currently, a strategy like this would light a fire under the stock price because it eliminates any further further risk with respect to the GOOG case.
I mean you cant get any worse than a complete loss other than a complete loss + additional money wasted on additional legal fees.
I re-iterate, TRUE support line falls in the range .025-.55.
You can't patent technology that is already widely shared. Copyrights however can protect specific software from being identically cloned. That doesn't mean some other company can't write a program to do the same thing, which is what Google did. The appeals court was right to toss this patent into the meat grinder. It NEVER EVEN should have been approved! Google did not use any of Nokia's coding. You can't patent query based processing 'concepts' that are in WIDE USE!
RD2014, can you elaborate what the difference is?
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2430095-vring...ent-trolls
To ADD - This software should have been COPYRIGHTED, not PATENTED!
I think more appropriately, this patent never should have been approved. Query content extraction is common place, in today's web environment. I think it is a JOKE that it was EVEN APPROVED!
VRNG - TIMBERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!
"But finding fact is not the role of the CAFC.”
The chosen few now to hold all the power and law/ rules do not apply to them.
Well,this is Obamas America now... Innovation be damned and the elite be blessed ...
"If the CAFC's ruling stands, there will be severe, long-term consequences. It will discourage innovation, thereby harming the public interest, by weakening patent rights and creating great uncertainty as to whether patents can be enforced. It will unfairly upset the settled expectations not only of inventors but also of investors, licensees, and others who have played by the existing rules for decades."
Have an estimate on tangible book value?
This may sound ridiculous but based on this decision should we be writing our U.S. Senators and Congressman on the end of the U.S. Patent system as we know it?
This so called Appeals Court decision invalidates the United States Patent Trade Office! If there is no "En Banc" hearing it is solely because of Google's monies and influence over the judges!
That's very interesting. Looks like SCOTUS might need to step in and review these types of rulings.
Just crazy. Look for Mayer's comments. Unbelievable. Sounds like he's arguing with himself this time.
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/01/13/supreme-.../id=47392/
Unfortunately this has happened before. http://soverain.com/pdf/i4i_press_release.pdf
The good news is that the fact that it has happened before makes it more likely En banc or SCOTUS will happen. Supremes chose not to hear the soverain case, but it is my understanding that when issues come up again and again they must address it at some point to actually decide what the law is.
Are you serious? LMAO
Litigate them. I am sure they don't just sit on a shelf and collect dust.
Judge Mayer Raises 101 (In VRNG case) When IT Was Not An Issue in the Case: Other Panelists Don’t inject 101.
?August 15, 2014?David
