looks like a 0.043 close

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/05/health/gupta-medical-marijuana/

Yes, that is why your views are very much appreciated :P

Just enjoying the ride for now. Added more in 3.70s.

Sorry 1:05 PM

trading to resume at 1:00 PM

https://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=Tradehalts

Awesome plot by HJJ

So considering that the SC fails tomorrow, it is my opinion that

1. HJJ can and will rule on the RR immediately without a time fence on it and the time fence would depend on WA ruling
2. The WA ruling will take a month or two until the expert opinions are heard by the court

With this approach, although we will know the RR immediately and also know of a definite amount we will receive from Google till WA date, it would be good for Google. The reason being there is no penalty they pay for the WA trick they played.

I personally would want HJJ to rule on RR till the WA date which I believe would be around 5%. Then sort out the WA issue and render a verdict on the WA and a different RR(7%) from WA date till the patent expiry.

Hi JJ, Thanks a lot for your valuable inputs!

I am of the opinion that if a settlement cannot be reached at tomorrow's SC, only then will HJJ contact the experts given by Vringo And Google. I say this because these experts will not paid by either of the parties but the Court would bear the expenses if it wishes to use them. So at this point I believe both the parties know very well as to how legitimate their arguments have been in the motions filed and also HJJ's potential. With that in mind I believe SC is just an opportunity provided by the court before it would put any effort in determining the validity of WA issue and RR.

To me that seems to be HJJs interpretation of Judicial Economy.

Just a thought, if you think Vringo lawyers tried to go for a home run with the sanctions motion knowing that the chances were remote, then it would worry me. They tried it after the discovery of the workaround issue, where they had their experts review the changed system Google has in place. This would lead me into believing that Vringo legal team itself is either not sure if the changed system still infringes or they are convinced that it does not. Otherwise what was the need for these sanctions if they were convinced that the workaround still infringed.

We longs are of the opinion that the WA Google has in place still infringes and that is the reason, they did not document the changes. However, if they have produced the entire source code for review, then it would also mean that Google is confident about the WA.

PS: I am long and have been in it for more than a year.

Point is simple.

The money I have invested in Vringo is the money I can afford to lose. I had options of losing it either in Vegas or on Vringo. I chose Vringo. Smart choice ain't it?

JJ, With this order, does it mean that Goog will need to use 20.9% in their calculation of Supplemental damages as well? I believe that is due Monday.

That seems to be the ideal scenario. I wouldn't be surprised if Goog files a motion requesting more time or some other gimmick and HJJ again sits on it for a fortnight only to grant it.

Larry's opinion, not mine :)

Ellison clarified that Page -- who is known for his personal slogan, "Don't Be Evil" -- "slipped up this one time" and said it was it was his actions, not necessarily Page himself, that were evil.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57598257/oracle-ceo-larry-ellison-google-ceo-did-evil-things-apple-is-going-down/

Thanks again!

JJ, Thanks for the clarification.

Supplemental damages are as extension to the past damages is what I understand. This is completely different from the post judgement royalties.

So Jury had decided the past damages based on the revenue numbers provided by Google and a formula that was presented at the trial. There were no numbers provided by either Google or Vringo at the trial. That being the case, was it not upto JJ to get the revenue numbers from Google and do the calculations himself rather than asking for the numbers from both Google and Vringo? Wouldn't this open up the argument on the calculation again?

Is there a way we can ensure JJ has a better calculator than the one Jury had? :P

Looks like the shorts have set it up for the next week's 10% earnings. 3.22 + 10% is exactly where we close.

May not be a Google victory, but a reduced payout due to laches and workaround live date. They may be of the opinion that the current PPS already has this priced in. Also other argument could be the 2.8% base. But I tend to believe they are playing it more on the delay of the payout. Even JJs RR decision is just one which will be appealed to add to the delay. All in all, shorts seem to be safe till Google decides to pay from Goog case perspective. ZTE settlement is something to look out for as their stand is still not very certain.

Google knew the game was over even before they started playing it. They are playing it to send out a clear message that they won't yield easily if sued. Pushing out a $500 million settlement by couple of years is what they wanted to begin with and they have won the game so far. The amount at stake is not a matter of concern for Google at all. Just wait and watch how they'll confuse the appellate court with their workaround shit.

Argument B, page 6-7, me likes :D