post: https://stockhouse.com/companies/bullboard?symbol=t.qtrh&postid=34466774
"The WiLan unit has only signed a single license with a subset of patents to Marvell in the last 5 months." and "There hasn't been a single WiLan deal yet for Q1" unless, vg has confidential inside information, he does not know this. the statement should read, "The WiLan unit has only announced..." ditto "announced" for vg's Q1 assertion.
"WiLan has the fewest number of litigations in its pipeline ever at only 10." this is a big, SO WHAT! wilan's normalized revenue depends more on negotiated licenses that litigation. with some exceptions for "one-off" type partnerships (i.e. reversible connections x 3, Treehouse Avarar), most itigation focuses on the surprise, exceptional types of potetnial revenue from Apple (5 cases ongoing), Google, Microsoft, Micron, AMD/Xilinx, Amazon (on appeal) etc..
"Two of the cases WiLan brought forward against Sharp and Vizio were deemed "exceptional" and "without merit" and now owes fees and damages back to Sharp and Vizio." this will be minimal as it convers a limited time frame and applies to only one of three asserted patents. the total court doc can be read here (https://casetext.com/case/wi-lan-inc-v-sharp-elecs-corp-6), but the these two statements put the financial liability into perspective, which vg ignores. it will not be $5M to $10M based on this court assessment.
I find by a preponderance of the evidence that this case, as a whole, stands out from the rest and is exceptional. This finding is based on Wi-LAN's handling of the source code and related evidence necessary to prove infringement of the claims of the '654 patent. On all other parts of the case on which defendants rest their motion, defendants have failed to persuade me by a preponderance of the evidence that any of those other parts were individually or collectively exceptional. Still, again, however, the case, as a whole,I find, is exceptional.
It was also appropriate to compensate defendants for the portion of their fees incurred in defending against the '654 [patent] after April 26, 2018 through the entry of final judgment on September 12, 2019.
"And the longest covering analyst Todd Coupland sniffed it out and is the only one that was around for the last strategic review.
It seems abrupt, it doesn't seem like an orderly transition. I am just wondering if you can assure us that the financial results of IRD & ETC are tracking to your prior expectations and this change doesn't have anything to do with missed financial targets"
A question by Todd Coupland is presented as a statement. Convieniently, the answer was left out, "I can absolutely confirm that for you Todd." listen to Todd's question and gillberry's full reply starting at ~23:50 mark:
https://produceredition.webcasts.com/viewer/event.jsp?i=1519718&tp_key=2f1ac0a840
"These are the facts."
the most bold statement of all. yes, facts are cited, but are then used to assert half truths or out of context misinformation. this excerpt from The Conscience Project on How to Mislead with Facts (https://consilienceproject.org/how-to-mislead-with-facts/) is on point:
Unfortunately, today it is standard practice for both institutions and individuals from all sectors of society to offer strategically cherry-picked and decontextualized facts, set within a predetermined emotional or ethical frame. This way of using facts is an effective tool to bring some people towards previously unappealing conclusions. It also provides rhetorical ammunition to those already predisposed to drawing these conclusions. While honestly passing the scrutiny of the fact-checkers, such an approach is nevertheless far from entirely truthful.