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.
Please explain to the viewers at home why you think this will take several years if ever to have GOOG pay?
Form 4's have all been handed out, now it's time to sign some deals:
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/vrng/sec-filings
Let the PPS fly!!!
I was wondering why G wanted to consolidate then withdrew.
I am thinking they withdrew because if G loses the first appeal, they still have time to work out some sort of settlement before the second is heard or at least ruled on. If they consolidate the appeals and lose, then they lose everything. They wont have any sort of leverage or time to negotiate anything.
That is what I was thinking the reason for withdrawing the request to consolidate.
What is your reasoning Napkin?
§ 958.6 Notice of docketing and hearing.
(a) Within a reasonable time after receiving the respondent's Hearing Petition and the Complaint, the Presiding Officer shall serve upon the respondent and the Determining Official, a Notice of Docketing and Hearing.
(b) The Notice of Docketing and Hearing required by paragraph (a) of this section may include:
(1) The tentative site, date, and time of the oral hearing, if one is requested;
(2) The legal authority and jurisdiction under which the hearing is to be held;
(3) The nature of the hearing;
(4) The matters of fact and law to be decided;
(5) A description of the procedures governing the conduct of the hearing; and
(6) Such other information as the Presiding Officer deems appropriate.
They will PR anything noteworthy prior to the CC, the same day or possibly a day before. They will not make any "new" announcement on a CC, will not happen.
Its just indexing, meaningless IMO
Is it me or is VRNG getting wound up like a spring here at 4?
I do believe that we are getting ready for a move, hopefully that move is upwards.
Long Odds
The Supreme Court does not exist to correct every flawed decision issued by a lower court. Even with the help of their law clerks, the nine justices could not possibly handle the enormous volume of cases generated if every aggrieved party could call upon the Court to review the merits of each controversy as a matter of right. Therefore, with very limited exceptions, Supreme Court jurisdiction can be invoked only by filing a petition for writ of certiorari (cert petition), which the Court can grant or deny at its discretion. When the Court denies cert, that is the end of the litigation road; the Court will not consider the case on its merits, and the lower-court decision will stand, rightly or wrongly.
To make matters more difficult, the odds of persuading the Supreme Court to grant cert have always been small, but they have decreased even further in the past two decades. The volume of cert petitions filed has increased while the numbers granted each term have declined. Between 1989 and 2009, the Court averaged 7,500 cert petitions each term, yet it granted an average of only 93. Those figures translate into a "grant rate" of only 1.2 percent, down from about 7 percent from 1970 to 1988. Even if the typically unmeritorious in forma pauperis petitions are removed from the calculus, the success rate is not much better, rising only to about 3.7 percent.
Given the extremely long odds, what is a lawyer to do? Many times, the best course is to do nothing. Your client likely will be best served by forgoing the cost of preparing and filing a cert petition and just accepting the lower court's decision, even if you believe strongly that the decision is wrong. But in cases where the issue is important enough, or the dollar value of the judgment is quite substantial, the added expense of petitioning for cert may be justified, despite the unfavorable odds. In such cases there are ways to maximize your chances of persuading the Supreme Court to grant cert and review the merits of your case.
Isn't this USTPO thing a red herring? Hasn't that ship sailed? I believe the patents would have had to be invalidated before the suit was filed.
Anyone have more info on this?
Didn't we discuss this patent validity thing over and over? As long as part of the patents are valid which they are already that the jury trial can not be changed nor the award?
Anyone want to refresh the board on how this works exactly?
Thanks
How is this a "landmark case?"
This is a simple patent battle pure and simple, these cases go on daily, nothing would be precedent setting on this case.
Prove me wrong please!
How is this a "landmark case?"
VOLUME PRECEEDS PRICE!!
With the rising volume and share price rising, we will see the demand increase as shares become scarce, coupled with some news of the RR and shorty covering we might see a run that we will talk about for years to come.
The calm before the storm. We all know it is coming but how big will the storm really be?
Drop that hammer HJJ, let it rain!!!
Said from the mouth of a thief!!
SQUEEeeeeezzzZZZEE!!! One the way!!
Now finally there is a reason for GOOG to come to that table and talk.
It's probably best if you just sell and move on.
Why no PR for injunction in India?
1. The injunction is not a material event. We can argue that it is, however the injunction itself does not have any money tied to it positive or negative.
2. If VRNG was trying to prop the PPS up, they would have PR's this event, they chose not to, why?
3. We all know that the only thing that will move this stock is actual income, I believe that VRNG wants to try to get ZTE to settle before HJJ makes his ruling. Why, because with a settlement and actual $$ in the coffers, VRNG has a much better position to negotiate with.
4. GOOG doesn't want to settle, we would all agree on that for the most part. However, if HJJ hits them with 7%RR, and the specter of latches being appealed, that might be the point in which GOOG decides the fight is over.
I believe this is coming to a head now, we will soon know and probably before the end of the year. Worst case, we fight the appeals and go after more infringers. This could be a cash cow for many years to come.
It sure looks that way. And if I were VRNG I would use this as leverage for a world wide license. Otherwise ZTE will lose a lot more money from missing out on India than they would ever pay in royalties to VRNG.
I would say this is quite a hammer that VRNG is about to swing.
Makes you wonder what else out there we don't know about? Both good and bad, huh?
Dominoes fall quickly once they begin, will ZTE wait for a ruling in Germany at this point? I doubt it.
Cup and handle formation? Sure looks like it to me.
All of your posts have been negative and without any back up to make your point.
You say "The judge may at this time make some modified scaled back rulings favoring Goog" What law experience do you have to make a statement like this?
Thanks
My bad, I thought Furrow was their pro witness. In this case, GOOG may be cooked.
So can anyone weigh in from a legal standpoint and say whether any sanctions against GOOG are worse then them having a 7% RR vs a 3.5% RR? If not then even though GOOG may get their hand slapped, this was worth it to them because they stood a chance at 3.5% or less rather then 5% or 7%. Now I hope that 7% is a sure thing after HJJ sees that GOOG is full of crap. But thus far HJJ doesn't seem to see GOOG for who they are.
My opinion is that this was all just a calculated risk from Goog lawyers. Past history suggested the mere ideal of a work around would have HJJ reduce the RR award. So they said they have a work around. Then when they get called to that carpet to produce the actual evidence, they didn't have it so they had to back track and cover their asses. The one thing that Goog hasn't done to date and these filings seem to back this assertion up is produce an actual Goog employee that was involved in the creation and implementation of the "New AdWords". If they did that, VRNG would indeed have them by the balls, because at that point it would be tell the truth or risk perjury. To us on this side it wreaks of a failed attempt to reduce the RR, nothing more. However they are in CYA mode now and risk getting sanctioned for it too, but the sanctions don't out weigh the benefit if this worked and reduced the RR. Hopefully the judge will see right through this and put this W/A issue behind us and get on to the final RR.
Maybe your boyfriend pulled it out?
The E means they are in non compliance. They just need to file some paperwork and they will be fine. Means nothing important, sorry Belleso, you are not important either.
Settlement just disclosed along with licensing agreement.
Joe writes:"Certainly possible that the stock goes lower"
And using that same logic, the stock can possibly go higher too!
Well said, that was spot on!
You are giving Joe N far too much credit.....
I was not asking you questions, I was questioning your response to C Man. There is a difference son.
At every turn you expose a side of you that becomes even more repulsive to the masses on the board. Believe it!
Joe - That would be awesome if anyone cared, but alas nobody gives a crud what you "say" you did.
Joe? You are an investment pro? I thought you chased crooks for money?
At the time I hated and feared Larry with the ball. He was just as amazing with the ball. The 80's were amazing for the NBA
#32 no look pass triple double machine!!
Just because I think someone is a fool doesn't mean I am angry.
I am a pretty even keeled person in general, I don't got too emotional either way.
You can read into it whatever you want but take it at face value because that's what it is.
How old am I? Older and wiser than I once was.....
You say uncertainty is driving markets? Who knew that? Thanks for the incredible trading insight! You should be on CNBC with that type of genius.
Worry about yourself, don't try to save everyone else, that's a fools game.
Don't assume you anything about me or how I trade.