Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
He doesn't need to do anything... People need to man up and stop blaming other people... Oh wait that's right... Your president just got elected
James and Steven are writers and investors... You hit "buy" or "sell" based of your own DD... If you didn't do it or panicked... That's not their fault, cliff's fault or anyone else's.
VHC did this too after their victory and then shot up thousands of percents... Time for a corona and to step back for a week or two... Then make assessments of this stock.
Verdict redacted officially on pacer.. The docs... Not the actual verdict
Just remember Vhc was taken down on their win and then they went to 40 a few month later...stay long!!!!!
Lol... My son said it to me and I had the same reaction... Till he howed me what it meant
Dear mods... Please post win and pr on board once ours come out
GFTA!!!
It's 100 percent cash requirement on eTrade got the calls last week
This post might not be accurate...diff screen name on YMB... But it still might be... Same writing style an he has been having trouble with his handle and had to change fwiw
FROM COURT UPDATE FROM EDVACOURT
Jury wants to know, do they add taxes, and lawyers fees or does judge.. Jury seems motivated to get it done today-More great news, makes me want to run and buy more shares--I think I will real quick, before they come back for verdict. Judge seems restless today, and jokes with court reporter alot-Though he seems annoyed with Jury somewhat..
I just vomited
Excellent post on patent juries....GLTA (its almost Monday!!!)
Love youre life and day tomorrow...the weeks going to get better and better :)
http://finance.yahoo.com/mbview/threadview/?&bn=335d0cab-c8c2-325a-b1c7-5bd038d7c88f&tid=1351985236125-6671636b-1b85-42e0-b85c-30fb8f39c66c&tls=la%2Cd%2C8
They were the IR firm this summer... Maybe something changed
Totally understand and agree mostly... However there has been a lot of nonsense so to single one person out is silly IMO. Also I believe that if there weren't so many emotions tied in this people would be placing their rage where it is really due... In the shady shenanigans of google
IMO. GLTA!
Goodness guys---people post nonsense all the time...we are upset that we are all not rich yet...dont tae it out on people posting on a message board---its not like he came out with a USA today article...goodness
Your rage should be directed at Google and the media for their sham and not reporting this case factually---not some guy on an anonymous message board..
jmho
From Ed just now...from court---in answer as to why he feels its a positive (or rather not negative):
Not what I heard...they asked if they could move on to #2 before determining #1. It was even unclear if they meant question number #2 on the Verdict form or part one and two of the first question which relates to the 420 patent and the 664 patent respectively. I sat there as the Judge read their question.
Question #1 Infringement...yes or no
Question #2 Validity...patents valid or not
Question #3 Damages...if there is an award is it a Lump Sum or based upon Running Royalty
FROM EDVACOURT YMB
At about 10:10 this morning the jury asked a question regarding whether they could move to number #2 on the Verdict sheet before completing number #1. In the presence of counsel the jury was called back in and the Judge said if you are referring to breaking down the questions into subsets, meaning the 420 patent and the 664 patent, sure you can consider those any way you want. But he said they should not move on to number two as depending upon what they decide on #1, numbers #2 and #3 may not be necessary. I see this as the first sign that the jury is being efficient and in all likelihood has decided question #1 in favor of the plaintiff. Here is my reasoning quickly with some speculation on the juries thoughts:
A) If there is no #1 no need to go to #2 (I think this is the best argument)
B) If trying to sort out which claims #1 applies to one would want to decide number #2 claim by claim to see if number 1 and number 2 match up. Keep in mind that Judge Jackson has instructed the jury on the use of the doctrine of equivalence which states basically that they don't need to be exact if the resulting function is determined essentially to be the same. You can look up the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings on this which is why simple workarounds often don't pass the non-infringement test. Being instructed they can use this doctrine was a big win for VRNG, one that GOOG counsel objected to.
C) If the jury believes that #2 is going to be done quickly they can concentrate on #1 claims (logical)
D) If jurors feel they have more or less decided number #1, they may, just to be efficient, want to set #1 aside and get #2 out of the way fast. These are all my own impressions based upon my own version of game theory in this case.
Oh my goodness that is the LEAST FACTUAL report I have read yet!!!!
People please realize that there are literally 9 FACTUAL ERRORS in this "article" aka "paid pump piece" aka "google PR dept."
Long and longer!!!!
Jury Deliberation Time---(from YMB)
For those who are interested there's an article from citeseer which examines the factors affecting the length of time a jury deliberates. Just google average time for jury deliberation.
Some key points:
- A civil case deliberation is most likely to finish around the 380-400 minute mark
- Gender doesn't have a significant effect on deliberation time
- If there are multiple charges, the jury takes longer
- If the jury decides to award damages, deliberation takes longer
- The higher the damages awarded, the longer the jury takes to reach a verdict
- Juries that find in favour of the plaintiff take longer to reach a verdict
- The average length of time for a 6-person jury case is only 81.5 minutes, for a 12-person jury it's 121.5 minutes. Having said that, the graph they show indicates that deliberation is most likely to finish around the 420-430 minute mark for a 12 person jury.
- For big damages to be awarded deliberation is most likely to be finished around the 390 minute mark
- For small damages to be awarded, deliberation is most likely to finish around the 100, 260 and the 370 minute mark
- Unanimous decisions are most likely to occur at the 440 minute mark
The paper is well written and backed up with statistical evidence. In the recent Apple vs. Samsung case, the jury took 21 hours and ended up awarding over 1B dollars, this supports the findings of the paper; jury deliberation is longer when they find in favour of the plaintiff, the decide to award damages, they decide to award large damages.
ONE VRINGO TO RULE THEM ALL
Reprint of PrincetonATTY44
Unfortunately very few people on this board realize that the Laches ruling was incorrect and amounts to a "fast track" appeal by the Appellate Court. Judge Jackson effectively granted a Motion on Laches by Google where none existed. I repeat there was no filed motion. Any 2rd year Law Student would have caught that one. Then to follow it up not allowing the Plaintiff rebuttal outside of Proffer is frankly, unbecoming of a Federal Judge. This one comes back. No question. No doubt. No Argument
Court update via mike... Jury at lunch should start deliberating around 4. Closing and last rebuttal went well for vrng
It's true that they sold shares but a. They were preplanned and percentage wise it's MUCH less selling than Goog insiders the article is very misleading VERY
No it's not... It's very false and misleading
Freaking idiot wrote that... Per percentage VRNG insiders sold WAY less than Goog. What a paid moron.
Normally they trade less than 6k pm
Could mean mobody is buying there are very few early trades pm standard for goog
Thanks Jim... Really curious on article
Cnbc and Goog finance is what a couple posters said fwiw
At YMB they are saying its trading PM on gfinamce and cnbc
Fwiw
You cannot buy a company that is not for sale
Untrue. Our lawyers are the best. Even the best of the best cannot fight underhanded corruption unless they are willing to go to that level. I applaud our attys for being exceedingly prepared, book ending experts and being brilliant and well thought out.
ZTE in February.... More patents to be approved... Becoming heavyweight in social media content, mobile video, real time video dating and probably monetization of mobile in unique sectors.
Ken Lang for President!
It's on the front page of Nasdaq.com
Freaking crooks.... google: Manipulating the media, courtroom and helping thieves and terrorists around the world since 2005.
ETrade just called me they are requiring 100 percent cash now on all VRNG.
Dow article just released.... Freaking amazing how we win 90 percent am no article Goog wins this motion and now it's a major story... Forking criminals
The only reason for Goog to win is pure corruption. That is and has always been my worst fear. They are theives and criminals.
Thank you :)
No, I don't feel it was bogus but I think the context and proper value placement on it was possibly confused. Perhaps it affects certain multiples of damages but does not affect a win or royalty amount. My 2 cents.
From Twitter---unsure how reliable but would make sense with Mike's comments:
GOOG just committed to a legally binding "we didnt know til ___ date"; if VRNG re-submits suit w a "willful damages" claim its in play
VRNG think legal tactics folks; GOOG just locked themselves down; if VRNG shows evidence to an earlier date, with a 51% legal hurdle...
VRNG then they get 3x damages. All VRNG needs to do is show evidence in private and GOOG settles.
GOOG's "we didnt know until Sept 2011" statement is a very very good thing IF VRNG can show earlier knowledge - two words prior art
Dr. Carbonell is doing a phenomenal job with respect to the prior art introduced by QE. Hold onto your hat as I cannot take time here but needless to say Carbonell is as advertised. He particularly ripped the Bowman patent as not comparing query to content which given the slide put up in court basically dismissed it. The jury is very attentive. Dr. Carbonell speaks with an accent which actually in this case has one pay attention to his words even more. Perhaps that is out of necessity. More later...
From YMB edvacourt