Dr. Ugone's numbers (From #974):
__________________________________________


Apportioning the total revenues for the October 1, 2012 to November 20, 2012 using the 2.8% apportionment factor and applying the 3.5% royalty rate yields total supplemental damages of $2,249,777. Supplemental damages associated with each Defendant are shown in the table below; the details of my calculations are provided in Exhibit 1.

I/P Engine's Supplemental Damages

Google $2,120,939
AOL $42,390
Gannett (USA Today) $18
IAC $84,387
Target $906
AOL Search Marketplace $1,138
---------------------------------------
Total $2,249,777


Prejudgment Interest Calculation - using Prime Rate

Google $278,538
AOL $140,027
Gannett $76
IAC $117,233
Target $1,742
---------------------------------------
Total $537,616

Prejudgment Interest Calculation - U.S. Treasury Rate

September 15, 2011 – November 20, 2012
Google $15,178
AOL $7,630
Gannett $4
IAC $6,388
Target $95
---------------------------------------
Total $29,296


Post-judgment Interest Calculation

Google $22,889.43
AOL $10,200.41
Gannett $5.54
IAC $8,602.34
Target $127.40
AOL Search Marketplace $1.45
---------------------------------------
Total $41,826.58

Continued denial of the 20.9% apportionment rate... Excerpts from Docket #973

...The 2.8% apportionment number should also be used for the non-Google defendants because there is frankly no other number to adopt that can be reconciled with the record...

...I/P Engine argues that it is entitled to use a 20.9% apportionment rate because the Court found that such a rate was appropriate for a post-judgment ongoing royalty calculation... The Court, however, did not and has not ruled that such a rate is appropriate for calculating past supplemental damages. Indeed, the jury made no finding that a 20.9% rate was appropriate, and its verdict is, in fact, inconsistent with such a finding as described below...

...Again, the jury did not award the 20.9% apportionment that Plaintiff asked for. Nor is there any cognizable guidance to be had from the jury’s actual award. Initially, Plaintiff presented no basis at all as to what its asserted revenue base was for the non-Google Defendants in the appropriate time period....

You are not making sense. Of course 965 is different from 969. They have different document numbers. LOL. He posted a list of multiple entries.

Go re-read the post I linked again, this time more carefully. It says 969 in BOLD. That's the sealed doc JJ posted about here.

JJSeabrook posted about this in msg #41976.

______________________

There WAS a sealed document that was Entered today that was filed on the 21st. (Highlighted below)

Docket Text: NOTICE by I/P Engine, Inc. re [960] Memorandum Opinion,, of Plaintiff's Calculation of Supplemental Damages, Prejudgment Interest and Post-Judgment Interest (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A, # (2) Exhibit B, # (3) Exhibit C)(Sherwood, Jeffrey)
969
Filed: 08/21/2013
Entered: 08/26/2013
Sealed Document

It's down for everyone. Here is a good resource:

http://www.isitdownrightnow.com/interdigital.com.html

Docket 95 (FB case)

Further Joint Case Management Conference Statement (PDF file)

I also have friends that work at Google. Two of them. I asked both of them about the VRNG lawsuit and the chances of a settlement.

They said they haven't moved far enough up the company food chain to have access to that kind of information. But hopefully in the future they will be promoted and gain additional security clearance levels, and at that time they may provide some more useful info. Here is a recent photo of the two of them on the GOOG campus:

I think it's semantics. In some cases, the court has ordered defendants with alleged workarounds (like Samsung) to hand over actual source code to patentees (like Apple). In other cases, the court has ordered other types of evidence. It all depends on the "product" or service and will vary case by case.

GOOG has to provide something substantial for VRNG to examine, the court has ordered it. That's really all that matters.

Whether it's actual code, or a design, or some other type of architectural blueprint... that's not the most important thing, although it is an interesting subject.

I Completely agree. EOM

Not bad. I like the list.

A couple of things I would add:

* All patents were NOT created equal. News of what other companies are doing, the developments of other patent cases, variables of other patent companies' licensing agreements/settlements, etc. almost always are irrelevant to your investment.

* Not all patent assertion entities have the same business model. Some companies are inherently riskier than others based on their model (e.g., high stakes litigation vs. small-ball settlements).

* Capital structure trumps everything else. Don't trust the number of shares you see at Yahoo Finance or MSN. Go read the SEC filings yourself to see the fully diluted capital structure of your investments.

* Not all patent litigation companies are pre-revenue stocks trading on the OTCBB. Some are actually profitable and trade on the Nasdaq, NYSE MKT, etc.

* Don't be afraid to buy and sell in tranches, and resist the urge to move All-In or All-Out at any one point in time. It's very prudent to take partial profits at any time, especially after big parabolic moves upward.

* News that does not affect a company's ability to earn future revenue should be heavily discounted.

I agree the more difficult task belongs to GOOG.. coming up with something that actually works around the Lang/Kosak patents --or-- at the very least, is creative enough to at least prolong the issue and waste the court's time for another couple of months.

Regardless, I didn't choose the word "burden". That comes from District Court (I believe E.D. of TX) back in 2008 !!!

Since the burden is on VRNG to prove to the court that, by virtue of a comparison, the "new" system still infringes... well they will need some sort of access to make such a comparison.

This is Patent Infringement 101, folks. We've seen it across a number of cases for decades. Contrary to what some believe, VRNG is not the only patent owner to go to court and assert it's intellectual property rights. There are zillions of results to research for comparison. Feel free to use a search engine.

"if a patentee intends to receive future damages for the continued violation of its right to exclude, the burden remains with the patentee to demonstrate that the product arising from the infringing product is no more than a 'colorable variation' of the adjudicated product. This can be achieved by making a comparison between the original product, the modified product, and the claims." - CreativeInternet, 61A F. Supp. 2d at 855 (citing TiVo, 640 F. Supp.2d at 863).

"The Court finds the Creative Internet Adver. Corp Court's analysis is highly persuasive and hereby adopts it for this case."

JJ you're wasting your time.

Some continually ask complex questions, and when they are given professional grade answers (such as yours), they would rather debate the point rather than graciously accept the knowledge.

Just to put a little context into this headline ("GOOG settled with a patent troll"), everyone should be aware of a few things:

* Acacia (ACTG) is probably the #1 publicly traded company that is considered an NPE/PAE/Patent Troll/etc.

* ACTG has over 260 different IP portfolios. And has settlements/licensing deals with nearly every single major manufacturer on the planet across a number of different markets: Apple, Nokia, Medtronic, IBM, Cisco, BBRY, Samsung, AT&T, Microsoft, Oracle, Stryker, and so on and so forth.

* The various patents owned and/or managed by ACTG are a combination of value and volume... which makes them somewhat of the Wal*Mart of the patent business. Everyone hates them, but most end up shopping there at some point or another due to cost, convenience, necessity, etc.

This GOOG/ACTG settlement highlights the fact that no company can just blindly refuse to "settle" or do business with a patent owner because of politics or some narrow-minded viewpoint about patent assertion entities. If the patents are real and are being intersected, the choice is to pay early or pay more at a later time.

Entire Nasdaq halted, not just MSPD

People were giving me grief for selling at .50 and higher.

It's all good. This is the internet.

JJS, thank you very much for your tireless efforts to provide facts to all of us. The Pacer downloads add up fast and you are very generous to share the documents in real time with us all.

As for the numbers...Like you said = no surprise. My quick & dirty math in post #39661 came up with $27 million -- but that was using $0.77 billion apportioned base instead of $0.48 billion (which is the extrapolated amount from today's filings).

So nobody should ever accuse me of trying to skew the data against VRNG.

A lot of errors are made if people rely on the info provided by cookie cutter websites and financial portals.

You are connecting dots that do not exist.

VRNG would not make a motion (as opposed to filing a contempt lawsuit) for the court to determine GOOG is in contempt because GOOG has not been enjoined.

Contempt was an issue of the TIVO case because the court issued an INJUNCTION. There is no injunction in the VRNG/GOOG case. Apples and Oranges.

The article from JJ was very enlightening, but you simply can't take everything from a different case (with a different set of facts and circumstances) and blindly apply it to the VRNG case.

Chances are not great. But this stuff is very complicated.

GOOG not only has to design around the literal claims of VRNG's two patents, they also have to design around the patents under the doctrine of equivalents. So we can sit here from the cheap seats and believe intelligently that GOOG is just posturing and that there is no real workaround that will survive scrutiny...

...but it's impossible to say for certain. Only those skilled in the art with access to the alleged new "system" will be able to make that determination (or present related arguments to the court so it can make that determination).

I suppose there's two ways to look at it. Some believe that the large passive ownership means a large amount of shares are somewhat locked up (won't be sold) during volatile trading sessions. The other side of the coin is that these same shares will be lent out to those seeking to borrow (i.e. short sellers).

In the end, I don't think large passive investment positions in a stock make much of an impact (if any) on long term performance and any short-term anomaly (arbitrage opportunity based on passive investment) is going to be near impossible for Joe Retail to be able to capitalize on efficiently.

Institutional investment is often a criteria investors look at when selecting stocks. But this is related to active institutional buying, not replicating index positions for retirement accounts, ETFs, and other passive vehicles.

If there is one thing I have seen on MBs over the last few decades is that the public (i.e., the majority of readers & participants) loves a good "bullish" tale.

Confirmation bias is universal. Rhetoric, emotional stories, and bullish opinions are appreciated by many - even if they conflict with facts.

That's why the masses lap up stories told by (alleged) investment bankers highlighting what a great M&A target VRNG is right now due to potential buyers analyzing VRNG's revenue streams. They seem to ignore that any revenue stream VRNG collects from GOOG will be short-lived, and probably consolidated into a one-time payment due to the expiration of the asserted patents. They also ignore the fact that VRNG is spending a ton on the ZTE litigation and have yet to prove to any buyer that the other (non-GOOG) revenue pipelines are ready to overfill with oil.

Bottom line: as long as serious investors ignore the emotional pleas, discount the rhetoric and the dime-store persuasion tactics -- they will be able to focus in on the facts and let the story write itself as time passes.

In this day and age, I suppose anything is "possible".

Although the question I think those interested in VRNG should be asking is whether or not GOOG would shut down (intentionally or unintentionally) nearly all of its services for several minutes simply to test/edit/upgrade a search and advertising filtering system that it has previously sworn to the court (many times) went live and has been fully implemented since May 2013.

Clearly the answers to such a question on VRNG message boards will vary. However, I am guessing that outside of VRNG MBs, almost nobody (including web gurus, professional coders/programmers, and any other relevant internet experts) will link the outage to VRNG. And that is rather telling.

Yes. This is a concept I have stressed multiple times.

"...the CAFC encourages district courts to give parties a ton of time to settle, especially post-judgement..."

I agree that errors should be fixed. This is a very difficult and delicate error to fix because it involves a jury.

HJJ deferred on the issue because he knew it was almost certain to be addressed by the higher court. It's a decision for Solomon (CAFC) how to split the baby without harming him.

you're misinterpreting that to align with your desires

The matter of the jury error (and Judge Jackson's unwillingness to grant VRNG's requested one-day trial to alleviate that error) is now at the Federal Circuit. The same issue can't be remedied by two different courts at the same time.

Why are these facts so hard to accept?

Very good post RA (EOM)

it only takes 1 day to file

it takes 2 days to sell to the highest hedge fund bidder

(I joke, I joke!)

Well said. That kind of crazy thinking just got you a membermark.

JJ, I think a PR will pop it again. I think the upcoming SA articles will also attempt to pop it also.

My concern as a shareholder is that the workaround issue is now front and center. It appears GOOG will have to present its alleged design around source to VRNG whose experts will have to dissect the "new adwords" system and prove to the court that it is still infringing.

Now if GOOG is just blowing smoke, this process will not last that long and be somewhat transparent. However, if there is more to this than meets the eye, we could see an evidentiary hearing near the end of the year and a decision that does not come until 2014.

More delay is not good.

those worried about the SCHEDULED workaround hearing

"August 25, 2013 - The parties must produce any documents relevant for determining whether New AdWords is no more than a colorable variation of the adjudicated product."

Thx for the update!

I'm currently seeing a volume of 292,083 after just 21 minutes of trading.

Good dig, JJ.

I'm of the opinion that the precedent judges like to follow the most... is their own!

very nice! EOM

Well done. You have already been rewarded nicely.

I told everyone who asked to buy some Q when it dipped into the $5X.XX range. I believe you were one of them.

So, did you?

I see. You might be right.

It made more sense to me if he was talking about Salesforce. LOL