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 you were long VRNG and you had this information and nobody believed you, at some point, you'd just say to hell with it and go count your riches and let people find out when they find out. Spending far too much energy trying to convince people you're right. At least the knuckleheads that pay attention.
It's just gotta be scuttlebutt in the hallway amongst courtroom observers kinda stuff.
I thought about this some more, and I think it could be less that someone's (or more than one) holding out and more that infringement is the hardest thing to wrap your brain around. For the layman, which these jurors probably were, there was a lot of technical mumbo jumbo they've gotta process and make sure they understand. And reading the daily court updates, it wasn't clear how much the jury was following it. So the thinking that maybe they want to bang out Question 2 because they know they're going to have to sit there and spend a lot of time going over Question 1 seems reasonable to me. Question 2's pretty much been decided by USPTO (or whatever it's called).
It's a jury trial though. The jury decides that.
It really shouldn't even be a question.
Why wouldn't validity be the first question? You can't infringe on an invalid patent.
That's what I gather as well.
I concur.
You didn't misread it, that's what it said. I thought the same thing.
Nobody could predict a cockamamie judge's ruling that every person with a legal background I've seen so far says doesn't make any sense. There's always an unknown variable.
Why would they have a royalty ruling before they've even decided on whether there was infringement or not?
And I don't think they sequester juries in civil cases, but I could be wrong.
You can't really make up for that mistake other than reversing the decision. Bumping up the royalties would just be screwing it up even further. Because from VRNG's point of view, they don't care if he bumps up the royalties, they should still want what they're due for past damages. Google's not getting out of that.
Somebody on the Yahoo board made a very valid point that there was only one expert that testified to what a reasonable royalty rate would be, so the judge who knows jack about royalties would have to ignore the expert and pick his own royalty, if he were to go with something other than the 3.5%.
So, I guess the judge isn't reversing his ruling and any reversal of his laches ruling will have to be on appeal?
So if the judge were to overturn his ruling, he'd have to basically do it this afternoon, would he not? Before it gets to the jury.
It certainly does, but I'd be shocked if the judge overturned his own ruling. My guess is that's not a common practice, no matter how clear it seems. But we'll see.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say judges probably REALLY don't like to reverse their own decisions.
That doesn't make sense. You're basically saying once the trial started 2 weeks ago there was no chance of buyout.
If VRNG accepted the offer, I'm pretty sure they'd have to drop the lawsuit immediately, they trial wouldn't be put on hold, it'd be over.
If it doesn't say it's halted there, I'm not believing it.
Google Finance is saying premarket is $2.47 at 7.58am.
Today might be another dicey day, because after the debacle that was yesterday, I don't have expectations that people will behave rationally. The next few days will provide a verdict, so it's pretty clear what happens from there. People freak on a loss and it plummets another dollar, or they win and the stock climbs to $4-$5, possibly more in the short term.
I just don't see how they could still win hundreds of millions in this case and still be a $2.50 stock.
In the clear light of day, yesterday's events will be a non-issue in the long run for exactly the reasons you stated. It's full speed ahead as far as I'm concerned. Google infringed, everybody knows it, and should Vringo win, all those other infringers are gonna be running scared. The loss of past damages absolutely, positively has nothing to do with the merits of the infringement claim.
I totally agree. If this ruling was still hanging out there, perhaps Google rolled the dice on it and now they've reduced it about as much as they're gonna be able to and are ready to play ball.
It's mind boggling to think a team of some of the best lawyers money could buy didn't think of this. Not even one of 'em thought they might wanna have a witness handy for rebuttal.
Because it's still an option on the table? Or at least it was.
So if it only applies to something VRNG isn't even asking for, it would seem to not mean a whole lot.
Are we REALLY sure this laches business is a big deal? Since nobody seems to be a lawyer or have any legal knowledge to speak of, what do we really know about it's impact on the case? At this point, it just sounds bad or people that don't know much assume it significantly damages VRNG's case, but does it really.
Wouldn't you think Google would've mentioned this 9/15/2011 date a long time ago if this ruling were actually true?
Don't indulge him.
What's a likely or reasonable stock swap figure, if that were to be the result? I've heard everything from 6-7 VRNG for 1 Google to 50-60 VRNG for 1 Google.
The news outlets don't seem all that interested in it at all. Not that I expect constant updates and hand wringing, but outside of this board, discussion on what by all accounts is a very relevant court case, nobody "on the outside" seems to care.
Is a tie possible? I mean, all we hear is it'll be a clear win for Vringo or a clear win for Google, but what if it's something in the middle? Or is a middling decision where both sides can claim some victory not possible in this scenario?
One of these days it might actually be true. lol
VRNG can't be overconfident. Regardless of how VRNG THINKS it went, they can feel good about it all they want to, but all bets are off when it's in the hands of a jury. If you're trying to mitigate the risk, you're gonna take the settlement (provided it's reasonable, of course) and go home.
I hear you, but it's tricky business to say who's winning and losing when Google hasn't even put on their case yet. It's pretty one sided because only one side's had their turn. I'm long VRNG, I'm just sayin'.
They can do whatever they want if VRNG is willing to go along with it. What's the judge gonna do, force them to continue the suit?
It doesn't matter where it is now, it matters where it ends up after settlement or decision. Period. People just wanna be able to say they were right in the interim.
We don't know that, but I'll take my chances that max, there'd be one out of 7. Stroll down to your local college's engineering building and people watch. Engineering's not the place you wanna go to meet women. lol
You can't dismiss everybody. We don't know the challenges they used on the people they DID dismiss. They could've felt he was the lesser of multiple evils. A random jury pool can be a crap shoot sometimes.
It's funny how both sides on this board are pointing to insider selling and thinking it means something. You've got one person saying Vringo insiders are selling so it's a signal of something and another person saying Google insiders are selling and that means something. There's insiders on both sides not entirely positive about the proceedings. Nothing to get worked up about.
This board is pure entertainment value. lol