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.
CLFD...Still rocking...how far can this go?
As long as we are Goog's back, who knows.
If I recall correctly, CLFD hit 4 bucks on December 30, 2012.
$4 to $20 in one year, gosh. still holding for another run.
Today's closing @12.15 answered your question, i presume. lol.
I am looking for a run into earnings. hope we take out that old high.
Here is an older SA article, but worth reading again. Hope there is more gas in the tank.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1375401-clearfield-earnings-the-growth-is-back?source=yahoo
Yes, Rain,
I have had literally hundreds of cases where I plead laches, or have received a laches defense. I just never take it seriously. I have never tried that issue. JJ and Ra can confirm with their experiences. Vrng's lawyer's are certainly not horrible. I am just so tired of hearing about the "strategic moves" which supposedly justify the ignorance/arrogance for losing WI and laches issues.
Not true, after reading the SJ motion of goog, I noted on IH that I was concerned, cuz it was compelling. But after years of lawyering, I have never witnessed a successful laches argument, until yesterday.
Vrng's proffer to laches ruling:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByyR-FelC5OTeGxvUHUwc3RuUFU/view?pli=1&sle=true
just a thought...we heard dolphinsmike say over and over again that goog would never settle before they get a look at a jury. A logical premise, and the same logic applies at this time, goog will listen to plaintiff's case, try to pick away at plaintiff's witnesses and then see how strong the case is. If goog does not like what's going on, then they can settle. If they like how things are going, they put on their case. However, price goes up for every "peek" at the cards.
Robbin... You do not need to be a well respected patent lawyer to recognize a big "oooopsie" when it happens. Please tell me why you think not pursuing treble damages is "very smart calculated legal maneuver". I just don't understand it. I have never seen a potential billion dollar "oooopsie" before....but for RRD.
Red Angus, I guess the question is: can vrng even offer evidence of willful infringement in light of the MIL 299 order? If not, there will be no motion to amend to conform to the evidence, cuz there will be no evidence allowed on that issue. It can not be "resurrected" at that point, right? I do not understand the "strategy" involved, but I sure hope there was one. Otherwise, like you say, it's a billion dollar blunder and that is hard to comprehend.
JJ... MIL #1 (299) was later granted. Doesn't this exclude vrng's evidence re: "willful infringement"? ... or do you think vrng can still present such evidence and later make a motion to amend to conform?
Arper,
When i said "dirtbag", i was being kind. To have Fed Judge call your expert a liar and scoundrel, is incomprehensible and devastating. It can not help goog's cause. I would bet my hands that Sherwood/Stout have the transcripts of all ungars court testimony, including the one from Il. Maybe JJ and Red can chime in.
short answer: yes, the veracity, reliability, and credibility of the expert witness is in question. There are many avenues for cross-x, including past testimonies and the results thereof.
as in..."didn't Judge Posner call you a dirtball"
Haha, if he were a big shot patent lawyer, he'd be working in the office for $300+ per hour. Instead, he takes two weeks off and peddles stuff online about big shot patent lawyers.
Obviously both sides know the technical background of the jurors before they selected them. I don't think he meant to insult every woman, everywhere. But it would be interesting to know why the parties might want the females and for what reasons. Usually, the less expertise a juror has, the better, then the lawyers can let their "expert" run the show, rather than "expert" jurors.
You are right...but who knows, there may have been other reasons to keep him from goog's viewpoint, ie. still working for tgt, loves the company and his job, always treated fairly, etc.
I am amazed they picked the jury in a couple hours. The rocket docket at work, I guess.
Judge Jackson is handling the actual jury trial, not Miller. Miller was assigned the motions, however. That is my understanding.
The article says "Google is NOT preparing for trial". I don't believe it. That is naive, at best. Parties can't settle a case of this magnitude, without being ready for trial.
Two blunders by the dream team:
1. No request for treble damages in the original complaint.
2. Follow up with a hubristic attitude, and don't fix blunder No.1,
even if the court tells you to do it.
Why not just fix the mistake?
What is so surprising about the WI issue, is that NO ONE, anywhere, even suspected vrng did not even ASK for treble damages. I have read hundreds of articles, posts and documents. WI was always a rallying cry. When I read goog's brief asking for dismissal of WI, I thought "Huh, that can not be right". But it was. You can elect me president of the WI herd mentality society.
Of course, now it is deemed a "strategic" decision. yeah right, what attorney slices potential damages by 3x, cuz it makes strategic sense? Nonsense, you plead it, do discovery and see where it goes. Dismiss it, if/when, it does not look good, as Red A says.
This is just as ridiculous as the "game changing" settlement with AOL, for a mere $100,000K.
Also, folks should read goog's brief on the laches defense. That could be strike three.
In case anyone wants to get insights into what goog will argue to the jury, here is a good place to do so, the proposed jury instructions:
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/virginia/vaedce/2:2011cv00512/271949/693/
Strange, Noona does not address the "willful" issue, in either Jury Instructions or Proposed Verdict. At least I did not see it (68 pages long). Stout did address the issue. (somewhere after page 47 in the Plaintiff's proposed instructions, i think). The complexity of this case is simply mind-boggling.
Rain, I read one motion where goog wants the courtroom sealed, but only during testimony which involves confidential matters. No way will a judge shut out the public for the whole trial. imo
No, they are requested instructions submitted to the Court by Stout, et al.
Here is the link to Stout's requested jury instructions:
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/virginia/vaedce/2:2011cv00512/271949/695/
Interesting that Bowman and Ryan are not even listed as witnesses, as per Defendant's voir dire. Maybe they are not around anymore.
JJ. I read earlier that you were not a lawyer, but worked for years in the law biz. If you had a JD, you would be a very dangerous man. You have great legal insights.
In that regard, here is a fun read (from Marpha) that i am sure you will appreciate. Strangest Order I have ever seen.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/87691774/Oracle-Google-fail-to-settle-court-order
My cousin Vinnie...loved that movie.
Gosh JJ, I worked hard on my addiction to your penguins, and now my shrink says I need to deal with issues relating to your pole-dancing cash cow. lol
haha, ain't that the truth. I read vrng stuff and want to buy more, then I read goog stuff and want to sell. The roulette wheel is still spinning.
thanks zico, that's what i saw, too.
Folks want to hear from lawyers, but then don't listen to them...see Red Angus' comments. I agree. she/he's right on.
I opened a pacer account when it started. It was free. Just have to pay for "usage" over ten bucks. You got one? then use it. All I am saying is that I have not seen a "signed and filed" order...I see the proposed order and I think you quote the "proposed" order.
Guess what, Goog has submitted proposed orders requesting "dismissal" of the case. means nothing until the judge signs it, right? same with IP's proposed order.
"proposed" v. "signed and filed", do you understand the difference?
I hope it was, but until I can find the signed, filed order somewhere, I think Red Angus has it right.
R... That memorandum lists the relief IP REQUESTED in its motion, not what the Judge ultimately decided....not yet anyway.
I can not find a signed, filed, Order regarding the actual granting of IP's motion.
If someone can post such an order...great.
Yes, it was just a proposed order, which is required to be submitted in conjunction with the Plaintiff's motion, memorandum, etc. These items were submitted on 9-21-12. Did the judge make a ruling in the afternoon? Don't know, but UNTIL I see the judge's signature on the Order, I assume it has not been ruled upon.
Next attack comes when goog wins the PA argument. IMO, they will. For trial purposes, it makes little difference, but in the short term, the stock will drop on the "bad" news.
IMO, blogs are being referenced as source materials cuz people are just so desperate for information/opinions on terribly complex issues, ie patent infringement, plus legal maneuvering. This is so different from other "normal" investments. Most people can't get their heads around it and grasp at every kernel of info they find. Your mission, noob (your word, not mine) is to find the diamond(s) in the trash heap.
btw, here is my favorite link re: vrng:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Timothy_Sykes_altucher_Talking.jpg
"Dumper meets pumper". lol
JJSeabrook, I appreciate your posts, but I waste sooo much time watching those penguins. lol