Worlds Inc (WDDD)

[cadillacdave]

Perhaps I misunderstood your statement - which was worded something to the effect of - what WDDD wants IN ADDITION to what the attorneys get. It seems rather obvious that the attorneys are getting a percentage and that any settlement would of course cover that percentage.

Not looking to argue with you, just trying to point out that legal fees are NOT ordinarily part of a trial win as was suggested. It is simply misleading and false information. When I stated that, your position changed to it might be a component of a settlement. I simply question that because if legal fees would not ordinarily be part of a trial win why would it be part of the compensation for a settlement, which will be significantly smaller? You have taken the time to clarify your position but have not addressed that simple question.

The example provided by another poster - the title was EXCEPTIONAL patent case. The same thing applies with treble damages, which also is brought up quite often here, in a misleading fashion. In that case, it was clear that the infringement was willful in that Samsung continued to infringe even after the Court win and did not pay for the tech. Even in that egregious case the Court did NOT apply treble damages. Two factors that were likely given strong consideration by the Court was that the trial win only produced a victory of approximately $5 million which was exceeded by the legal fees of $7 million. The Court could have awarded treble damages of $15 million but chose not to. The Court, evaluating the totality of the circumstances, ordered Samsung to pay the plaintiff's legal fees. Absent that, it would have been a mostly pointless process or hollow judgment for the plaintiff who spent $7 million in legal fees to win an award of $5 million. It also seemed somewhat punitive in that Samsung declined to turn over documents, during trial, at the Court's request. Not a good move to ignore a request from a Federal Judge - so there were likely consequences for that.

Folks will point to the fact that ATVI declined to turn over documents during Discovery. There are several differences here so it is not an analogous situation. The Court asking during trial vs WDDD asking during Discovery. Also ATVI litigated the issue and had a Court ruling upholding their actions of not turning over the documents.