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.
If Microsoft comes to own the patents then they should be able to sue for willful infringement. I don't think it is about the money, rather the satisfaction of being able to attack Google.
Also because they are a direct competitor they may ask for an injunction, which they probably won't get but the judge could ask Google to implement a work around as happened in the Microsoft v i4i matter.
Doesn't double jeopardy only apply to criminal law?
This is Googles time line. Vringo has not accepted so it is in limbo unless the court compels Vringo.
I am speaking of 13 d/f/g reports filed for Q1 and reported by May 15. Not referring to motions sorry.
Yes I agree,I am expecting a nice increase this quarter and even more in the second quarter. We are going to find out who the buyers in the first quarter are. Some will buy after May 15 and you won't see them till the next report August 15.
May 15 is the deadline for all reports....they will trickle in until then
Nice article on the competition between Microsoft and Google
Microsoft Strategy Is to Make Google Into Microsoft
BY Dana Blankenhorn | 04/19/13 - 06:00 AM EDT
Stock quotes in this article: MSFT, GOOG, AMZN, INTC
Find out if (MSFT) is in Cramer's Portfolio.
NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- In 1955, the year I was born, Warner Brothers debuted a cartoon called "Hare Brush" in which Bugs Bunny changed places with his nemesis, Elmer Fudd. The conceit was that Fudd was about to go to jail, so he tricked the rabbit into going in his stead.
Microsoft is also letting Google shoot itself in the foot. Google Glass has always struck me as "inside baseball," a way for co-founder Larry Page to help his partner, Sergey Brin, self-destruct so he can rule the Googleplex alone. Brin's controlling impulses are now coming out in the Glass roll-out, as The Register puts it with more than a hint of snark, "Google Glass will self-destruct if flogged on eBay."
Google Glass actually looks bad enough to make people forget Windows 8.
As Microsoft prepared to announce earnings this week, there were growing calls for Ballmer to resign, as reported by the BBC . Problem is, to be replaced by whom? Microsoft has no successor in place, and as I noted yesterday in writing about Intel, there are no obvious alternative visions for the company coming from outside.
>>Also see: Google Rises on Earnings Beat >>
The Microsoft plan for now is to focus on the cloud, on an appearance of flexibility, on attacking Google, while rolling out a new version of Windows later this year that will "fix" the problems of Windows 8, much as Windows 7 "fixed" Windows Vista in the middle of the last decade.
Win or lose this quarter, is there a better strategy out there?
Curiously, 1955 was also the year Bill Gates was born. Current Microsoft (MSFT) CEO Steve Ballmer is a year younger than us. But Ballmer seems to have seized on that script as the way to turn the tables in his ongoing competition with Google (GOOG).
(Thursday, Microsoft announced earnings of $6.06 billion, or 72 cents a share, on revenue of $20.5 billion. Click here for TheStreet's report on the earnings.)
This all started in a rather ham-handed fashion, with an ad campaign called Scroogled, aimed at making Google appear evil, and a lobbying effort called Fairsearch, aimed at bringing the anti-trust cops knocking on Google's door.
I wrote about Fairsearch on Monday and while I disapprove of it on the merits I have to admit it's a clever bit of lobbying. By getting together with all of Google's foiled rivals, and attacking on multiple continents, Microsoft could indeed make its rival more bureaucratic, more like Microsoft itself has become, and less nimble.
Lately Microsoft has been getting more subtle in attacking Google through the cloud.
>>Also see: Verizon Survived Apple iPhone Subsidy Pain, But... >>
Yes, Google has the biggest, best and baddest cloud on the planet. But it mainly uses its cloud to provide Google services to Google customers. It doesn't sell the Google Compute Engine nearly as effectively as Amazon.com (AMZN) does.
In addition, both Google and Amazon are proprietary infrastructures. So, many thought, was Microsoft's cloud, called Azure, which the company first tried to sell as a complete platform, including tools for creating applications.
Now, working with independent vendors like Greenbutton, Microsoft is pushing the idea that its cloud can support OpenStack, the open source cloud infrastructure which seeks to challenge Amazon in the enterprise. In addition, Microsoft says, it will now match Amazon's infrastructure on price.
Bill Hilf, general manager of Microsoft's cloud computing group, calls this "the power of And" in a blog post announcing the plan. The idea is that Microsoft is flexible, Google inflexible, and that Microsoft prices to the market.
From reading the email dialogue. Furrow is considered a "code expert" and is the person designated by Google to speak about this "work around" from a technical perspective. It is unclear whether anyone outside of Google has seen this. The emails indicated that the code would be available to Vringo May 18 but Mr Furrow would not be until June 7th. This all depends on Vringo accepting Google's time-line and so far they have not.
Yes I see that. June 15 $3.30 one month later $5.60...big boost
This is the key for this excellent news :
NASDAQ will increase our exposure to institutional shareholders."
Stock pinned at $2.79/$2.80, you can buy all you want in here....my point from a previous post, Vringo was freely trading yesterday now back to being managed, pull up a two day 5 minute chart and it will be evident.
I think they discussed "work around" question at trial and determined that it is difficult if not impossible to alter the current method. An entirely new process would need to be developed. Remember we are simply going on Google's word here (based on what I have seen during this trial, their word has little credibility). No one has verified this method does not infringe and more importantly they have not implemented it. If Google was completely satisfied with it they should simply apply it and then prove it to the courts as a reason to not pay royalties.
I said that already maybe I wasn't clear:
The royalties may get delayed due to legal maneuvers but this is what must happen for Google to avoid on-going royalties.
if GOOG do actually have a solution which can completely negate the VRNG patents.. then there is absolutely nothing stopping them from sharing said workaround with all and sundry in order to completely suffocate VRNG.
Now, as we know, Google is attempting to present such evidence through the back door by deposing Dr. Becker, and then having Ungar or somebody else come in and presumably testify in opposition to Becker, but thereby offer affirmative evidence for the first time on a point they eschewed before. Whether Vrng and JJ allow this tactic is still a question.
I think the "workaround" issue indicates a change of strategy for Google. Previously their strategy was to appeal till the end because "we are not infringing and the patents are not valid". Now they have supposedly come to a different method that they claim does not infringe. If their initial strategy was on the table this work around is not necessary. It is an admittance that their appeal will most likely fail. I am not convinced this ever sees the light of day. The most likely motive behind this tactic is to lower the settlement with Vringo using the ruse of an alternate system as motivation for Vringo to reduce their demands.
The bump to seven is I/P's argument based on continuing w/I it is not part of the record that Dr. Becker's testified to. Therefore Google's argument is specious at best.
The "new damages figure" seems to be a figment of Google's imagination. Dr. Becker testified at trial that 3-5% was appropriate, post trial he said 5% is a minimum. How can Google make the case that these statements constitute a new argument?
They want access to Dr. Becker so that they can try and get him to agree that a lower rate is also possible.
Google wants to depose DR. Becker so that they can make his 3-5% comment look less certain. Especially what he said post trial "minimum 5% should be the rate"
They will throw everything at him, previous cases which they have studied, and try and get him to admit to a lower rate. The judge does not have to use this information. However if Google is able to get Dr. Becker to admit that a much lower rate is possible here then the judge has to consider it since the is the expert. Hopefully Dr. Becker will stick to his guns and won't deviate from his testimony
I agree Red this should be included. Maybe HJJ needs a reminder of how bad this conduct is from a colleague. This line is priceless:
Most parties that come before the Court are trying to resolve their legal dispute as expeditiously, efficiently, and fairly as possible so that they can get on with their business or personal lives. During the course of litigation, disagreements will necessarily arise—indeed, one could describe cases as disagreements themselves—and the Court understands its role is to resolve those disagreements, a task it is accustomed to handling. But in the present case, the parties’ obstreperous and cantankerous conduct—combined with the existence of similar cases by the same parties or their affiliates throughout the world—makes it plain that the parties have no interest in efficiently and expeditiously resolving this dispute; they instead are using this and
[Case 1:12-cv-20271-RNS Document 182 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2013 Page 1 of 2
similar litigation worldwide as a business strategy that appears to have no end. That is not a proper use of this Court.
From Postyle's Vringofree forum post. Dr. Becker never mentioned 7% as far as I know he said that he thinks 5% is a minimum and the transcript below indicates his testimony. He presents a range from 3-5%. The 7% argument comes for Vringo's lawyers taking account for willful infringement and post-trial conduct of Google
Here's more from the trial: Document 781 (Transcript from November 1, 2012 pp 1974-2125) -- I believe these words are part of Jeffrey K. Sherwood's closing arguments to the jury. Mr. Sherwood is with DS, who represents I/P Engine (i.e., Vringo).
Discuss amongst yourselves as I'm pretty confident in my understanding of "what the court believes". ;)
I am showing volume just over 3 million.
They may add but there was definite short covering today.
Some have but there is still a large profit on the table for most probably around $2 / shares till or more....
Yes I see big time short covering going on here...
There is evidence if short covering today... no doubt.
They are. In no way is this a new theory. I can't believe the level of desperation by Google now...
It's not a new damages theory. Googles lawyers are asserting it is because Dr. Becker states the minimum rate should be 5%. This rate was also discussed at trial where Dr. Becker said an appropriate rate should be 3-5%. Google's lawyers are really stretching here now calling Vringo liars ...wow..they see the writing on the wall.
What I am thinking about this development is that Google has changed their strategy and ultimately it is a good thing if you are long because previously they were going to litigate indefinitely now it appears they are more open to settlement although it is masked by recent developments.
What it is in my view is an attempt to engage Vringo in settlement talks, attempting to extract the lowest possible offer. The whole attempt reeks. Read the email timeline I posted, and their subsequent schedule. The new expert Bartholomew Furrow is not available till June 7, how convenient. Why wasn't Mr. Furrow presented as an expert at trial so that his theory could be reviewed by the court and DR. Becker. If they had done that this would have been far more dangerous.
The most important question that cannot be answered is this. Assuming they have created some code that does not use Langs's patents, how long will it take to have it independently reviewed and most important will Google simply create this new code and abandon the cash cow they have now? Finally this does not change the willful infringement question. Until Google does all that I mentioned and puts this code into their live search engine they are liable for on-going royalties.
A time-line showing the events leading up to today's motions: This helps to understand the flow and I thought it might help someone else.
Timeline VRingo and Google emails regarding extending the timeline for the briefing schedules .
January 16
-Charles Montero IP lawyer states as follows there have been discussions for a couple of weeks prior to this date
-"We do not believe Dr. Becker should be deposed his declaration should stand"
_ Vringo asks Google why your expert Dr. Ugone cannot provide a response to Dr. Becker's declaration without a deposition (this is a reasonable request)
There's no correspondence recorded from January 16 to April 11 the question is why?
-April 11, email from Google's lawyer a proposed schedule for deposition and discovery (details redacted )
- April 12 [follow-up]
-Google reiterates that they feel an extension to the briefing schedule for Vringos post judgment changes is appropriate. They claimed Vringo agreed to their schedule (this is not true)
-Google's schedule is as follows Bartholomew Furrow who is Google's code expert is not available in May and early June the earliest is June 7
-source code is available approximately May 18
-no questions may be asked of Mr. Furrow until June 7 however due to his schedule and then they propose to bring Dr. Becker for deposition in on July 2
-April 12 Vringos response occurs one and a half hours after Google's memo this indicates to me that VRingo is taking this process very seriously
- Vringo's lawyer states that they (Google) are making assumptions , that are not true Vringo did not agree to an extension of the briefing schedule. They make that clear here.
-Vringo clearly states what they agreed to:
1) they will consider a proposal by Google to address the issues Google believes are based on the implementation of the new system that is non-infringing
2) Vringo asks the question what does this "future" System have to do with ongoing royalties?
(I think what Vingo is saying, until you implement the system that is proven by experts not to be infringing you must pay royalties )
3) Vringo agrees only to listen to the proposals and explanations and asks Google to clarify.
April 15
Vringo's lawyer states a teleconference occurred this morning the morning of April 15 , he makes the point that the ongoing royalty motion was filed December 18 four months ago and there's no justification to delay this briefing and declined the offer proposed by Google
What I find most fascinating is the arrogance of Google, although at this point I should not be surprised. They demanded access to DR. Becker not asked. No explanation why when asked in January their own expert Dr. Ugone could not provide a brief response to Dr. Becker. They chose not to answer the question asked of them. Then they make assumptions out of thin air. One of their lawyers basically wrote that Vringo had agreed to the extension of the briefing and Vringo said no we didn't. Even after they understand no agreement another lawyer (partner) makes these statements
Charles, following up on this. Are we in agreement on an extension. (Read Vringos comments where they say no and he asks again?) So that we can try and work something out? (At least he asks but he already has the answer, which is no). We proposed an extra two weeks for our opposition and an extra week for your reply. Isn't that generous of them. Please let us know this morning.
David
This is when Vringo called them and made it crystal clear they are not accepting delays and will not offer Dr. Becker for deposition. What a company Google is, very disrespectful, rude , arrogant, self-serving and unscrupulous.
Hope this helps...
I agree with your assessment here. Unfortunately I feel the HJJ has lost control of his court. He does have to be fair but he also has to be firm. Google is a company with tremendous means. They have money and resources. There has been no indication they had this plan before. The filing by Vringo says that Google "demanded Dr. Becker be provided for deposition." They did not ask but demanded it as if it was a right. If this is the norm is post-trial patent disputes, which I am assuming it is not , then why doesn't the judge end this farce, deny Google's motion make a ruling and tell Google take it on appeal as he did to Vringo on Laches? How can this judge allow this ridiculous series of event s to continue?
Yes I saw that it said Vrng changed their mind on Becker and abruptly ended the meeting yesterday @ noon. ONe of the posts here has this.
NO you did not understand my post. I sold a trading position but I have reestablished a bigger position under $3.00 because I feel on further review this will not be a negative for Vringo. I also have a large core position I bought under a dollar and that I will not sell anytime soon.
Good we are in agreement on this point.
Yes I understand that. I too sold my trading position above $3. However on further analysis I do not believe this "work around" is credible . I do not think we will ever see a Google search method that does not include Lang's patents in the near future. Therefore until they actually remove the code and can demonstrate that to the courts satisfaction rather than just saying they will they will be subject to on going royalties. Therefore I am re-establishing a trading position at current levels. My core position remains undisturbed.
Perhaps. Therefore you are not arguing that they are not willful infringers correct?
From the judge's analysis what is a valid credible reason (from Google's perpective) for waiting for this late date to make these overtures. He will have to consider why Google could not have broached this issue, JAN/FEB/Mar. The process has already been delayed due to post-trial motions, there is no way a reasonable person can see this in a favorable light.
Today's motion is simply to delay the process. In terms of the judge ruling he will have to decide to accept or not but it does not change the willful infringement argument at all.
No argument can be made, in the negative, with respect to Google's willful infringement.
This action adds nothing to any viewpoint of willfulness or that GOOG has been / is being / will be recklessly infringing.