tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3147467842369010854.post4814085252654232800..comments2012-01-25T07:17:13.452-08:00Comments on Stock Boss: A huge play for EARLY 2012?Sparkohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03866419833487718825noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3147467842369010854.post-3460888688351898302012-01-25T07:17:13.452-08:002012-01-25T07:17:13.452-08:00Glad that I could help. Looks like I was right ab...Glad that I could help. Looks like I was right about the NEC lawyer as he was fired not too long after the Markman hearing. Hopefully the rest of my observations are right.<br /><br />I agree on most of your comments and everything is laid out pretty cleanly. The VHC situation is pretty complicated. <br /><br />I trust their consultants to get the job done and either land settlements or a very large court judgment.flyersdhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05812115819059521726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3147467842369010854.post-80967740980069301732012-01-24T21:41:48.816-08:002012-01-24T21:41:48.816-08:00@ Flyers, no I was not at Markman. My comments are...@ Flyers, no I was not at Markman. My comments are a combination of my studying and analyzing court documents found online as well as any pertinent information I could find online from various boards that I could validate through further research. Would actually like to take the time to say that some of my information has resulted from my reading of your posts on yahoo&IV and would like to say thank you for providing the unbiased information you have provided so far. Quite a refreshing change from posts from those such as Terp and the gentlemen who always ends his posts "bite me". I do encourage you read over my overview of why I believe VHC should prevail as I have spent countless hours analyzing and defining what exactly is going on and I firmly believe I have done it in a very accurate way.Sparkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03866419833487718825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3147467842369010854.post-46499791451325269572012-01-24T20:31:47.377-08:002012-01-24T20:31:47.377-08:00Were you at the Markman by chance? Some of those ...Were you at the Markman by chance? Some of those comments look awfully familiar.flyersdhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05812115819059521726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3147467842369010854.post-25318189978694931282012-01-13T20:27:03.697-08:002012-01-13T20:27:03.697-08:00Here you can find some of the court documents to t...Here you can find some of the court documents to take a look yourself and see what you make of it. <br /><br />http://www.investorvillage.com/uploads/81835/files/202-main-011212.pdf<br /><br />http://www.investorvillage.com/uploads/81835/files/202-1-011212.pdfSparkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03866419833487718825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3147467842369010854.post-67867457213695824692012-01-13T20:23:16.311-08:002012-01-13T20:23:16.311-08:00The case is still in court. The recent updates inv...The case is still in court. The recent updates involve the argument over the terms "secure communication link (SCL)" and "virtual private network" (VPN). VirnetX changed the wording of one of their patents from VPN to SCL so that they their patents could reach a broader array of products. This is because while a VPN is a type of secure communication link, it is not the only type so by changing the wording they want their patents to apply to more products which means more royaltys. The defendants are arguing that VirnetX has used the terms equivalently which is trying to prove the opposite, that the term is narrower in scope and applies to less products. The VirnetX lawyers responded that while a VPN is the preferred embodiment of a secure communication link, there are other forms of secure communication links and placing a limitation on the other froms is wrong. No ruling yet however I think VHC has an edge here because they had already changed the wording to the patents to secure communication link for a reason (to apply to more products). I will let you know any more updates when I hear of them.Sparkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03866419833487718825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3147467842369010854.post-69673272745147528462012-01-12T08:07:10.694-08:002012-01-12T08:07:10.694-08:00Hi Sparko. Everyone is now waiting for the judge t...Hi Sparko. Everyone is now waiting for the judge to rule in favor of one of the parties, right?Plopshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04420802597950515588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3147467842369010854.post-82121822426160955302012-01-06T17:09:27.759-08:002012-01-06T17:09:27.759-08:00@ Plops, no problem and sure I would be happy to c...@ Plops, no problem and sure I would be happy to convey the results from Markman. The judge of the case, Leonard Davis, worked as a programmer and systems analyst before entering law school and so has experience with technology making him well fitted for such a case. That combined with his ruling from the Microsoft case with VirnetX has no doubt a positive effect for VHC. The defendants were represented by Danny Williams (for Apple), John Desmaris (for Cisco)m Jon B. Hyland represented Aastra and am not sure who represented NEC. VirnetX was represented by the firm McKool Smith and has been lead so far by Doug Cawely. The defendants were trying to convince the judge that the terms being challenged were too narrow while the plaintiffs argued that they were infact wider in scope. It looked like it was going in VHC's favor however as no new evidence was brought up by the defense. Since the same terms were already upheld in VHC's favor from their previous suit, this fared very well for them as the ball really is in the defense's court to try and get the judge to change his mind and without any new significant evidence I don't see that happening. In terms of performance I heard Mr. Desmaris took care of the majority of the talking for the defendants, Williams the next and the other two attorneys did not do very well at all. In fact I read that Aastra's attorney seemed nervous and would have served the defendants better to not have spoken at all. I read that the team representing VirnetX really took care of business though and spoke shortly and concisely and countered the defendant's points effectively. <br /> Additionally, I have heard the judge has said he should have a preliminary ruling out soon and ordered that the parties set a date for 30-45 days after his ruling for mediation which I like because that means he wants this case settled sooner than later. Hope this helps and as the case progresse's keep checking back and I will update you on the latest status.Sparkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03866419833487718825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3147467842369010854.post-26802151229614070382012-01-06T10:41:18.895-08:002012-01-06T10:41:18.895-08:00Thank you for your answer, that's very interes...Thank you for your answer, that's very interesting to know a little bit more about the way it works! If you can share the results from Markman or tell me where I can find that kind of informations, I would really appreciate!Plopshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04420802597950515588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3147467842369010854.post-60255259130847987752012-01-05T14:56:32.949-08:002012-01-05T14:56:32.949-08:00@ Plops, glad you could find the information I pos...@ Plops, glad you could find the information I posted valuable. Your understanding of the markman is correct in that it is essentially for the judge to understand the definitions of the terms being challenged of the patents at hand and will not conclude the case. However, the result of the Marksman will likely dictate the end result of the case as once everything is laid out as clear as can be and assuming the defendants pulled out everything they could to try and get the judge to rule in their favor (a safe assumption I would say) then there really isn't anything more for the defendants to use in their argument. So no its not the final outcome but I would say it definitely provides useful information about the outcome. Patent infringement cases almost always go to a Marksman before a jury trial as the wording of the patents can be confusing to those not in the tech sector the pertaining companies are, but after it's over there is really nothing more to say for either side. However after the Marksman the judge will issue the outcome (for the MSFT case that took 6 months but the time always varies) and then it will go to a jury trial which is currently scheduled for November this year. However, it would seem very unlikely that if (or should I say when) Marksman goes favorably for VHC, it will not take until November as if VHC wins the trial then the ITC has the power to immediately halt production of all products from Apple and any other infringing company. Obviously that is something that provides series threat to Apple so they don't want that to happen which should more then likely result in either hefty settlements from the defendants before the trial as well as royalty agreements for future licensing of VHC IP. Another possibility is acquisition, possibly from a defendant in lui of settling. For example, Apple sure does have alot of 4g products so the idea of them acquiring VHC is definitely lingering around. Either way it is going to result in a huge leap upward in price for VHC and more than likely a juicy dividend for sticking with them throughout them all (as they did with MSFT). I hope that was useful, if you'd like I can try to post results from Markman daily to keep you up to date if your following the stock.Sparkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03866419833487718825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3147467842369010854.post-36198252087078143042012-01-05T04:13:41.834-08:002012-01-05T04:13:41.834-08:00Hi Sparko. Interesting details about the case, tha...Hi Sparko. Interesting details about the case, thanks for sharing it.<br /><br />Do you know when we'll know the outcome of this law suit? For what I understood, on january 5th, it is just the "The Marksman hearing", so a "teaching lesson about the case" for the judge, thus no useful information about the final outcome, right?Plopshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04420802597950515588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3147467842369010854.post-13160044721019047932012-01-04T10:35:43.334-08:002012-01-04T10:35:43.334-08:00Would not be intimidated by the recent shorting ac...Would not be intimidated by the recent shorting activity. The stock has been a short squeeze candidate for a while which just means when it starts moving up, its going to rocket in that direction as the shorts are forced out of their position!Sparkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03866419833487718825noreply@blogger.com