InvestorsHub Logo
Boards
News
Market Data
Markets
Discover
Discover
AI Subscribe Login/Register account icon
S&P 500
5,240.03
(
1.04%
)
US TECH 100
17,826.80
(
1.40%
)
Dow Jones
38,997.66
(
0.76%
)
Brent Oil
77.50
(
1.94%
)
Bitcoin
57,238.39
(
2.12%
)
Post# of 93822
Next 10
Reply Private New
Public Reply Private Reply New Post
Keep Last Read
Keep Next 10 Report Keyboard Shortcuts
Next 10 Prev Next

LawyerLong

Send PM Follow Ignore
Followers 1
Posts 1794
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 07/23/2001

LawyerLong

Re: heybrad post# 78618

Friday, 07/06/2012 5:54:14 PM

Friday, July 06, 2012 5:54:14 PM

Post# of 93822
Brad - all good points, It doesn't take an attorney to see that this was a much less successful venture for DM the second time around, and that it was so bad after the markman that they basically abandoned it. That's why I love Fred's disingenuous language that they are still "handling" EDIG's litigation. What litigation?

If DM didn't even challenge the markman or try to get any money out of the remaining defendants, and if "settlements dropped precipitously after round 1, then why would they even entertain the idea of a round 3? That's the sort of thinking that the attorneys engage in when trying to decide if a case meets the 75% yardstick for contingency representation. This one didn't even meet the yardstick for appeal.

LL
Public Reply Private Reply New Post
Keep Last Read
Keep Last Read Next 10 Report Keyboard Shortcuts
Next 10 Prev Next
Join InvestorsHub

Join the InvestorsHub Community

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.

Sign Up