You realize that this is not a recent statement. It is a statement Google made in November and the author used it in the WSJ story yesterday.
Here is the November story notice the quoted words are identical to the words in the current story. I doubt very much anyone called Google and they used exactly the same words.
Vringo Awarded $30 Million in Trial Against Google, AOL
Vringo Inc. (VRNG), owner of technology developed by the Lycos Inc. search engine, said it was awarded about $30 million from Google Inc. and some Google customers, including AOL Inc. (AOL), over patented ways to generate advertising revenue.
The companies infringed two patents owned by Vringo, a federal jury in Norfolk, Virginia, decided yesterday. Vringo said it was awarded a 3.5 percent continuing royalty rate on the patents, which expire in 2016.
Vringo claimed Google’s Adsense program, which is also used as the advertising platform for third-party companies and AOL Search Marketplace, infringed the patents. The company had been seeking $493 million, before U.S. District Judge Raymond Jackson ruled that Vringo couldn’t collect any damages that might have occurred before the suit was filed in September 2011.
“We remain confident that the patents here are invalid, that we did not infringe them, and that we will ultimately win this case,” Google attorney Catherine Lacavera said in a statement.
Google was told to pay $15.9 million, AOL $7.9 million, and IAC Search & Media Inc. $6.6 million, according to the Virginian-Pilot newspaper. Target Corp. (TGT) was told to pay $98,800 and Gannett Co. $4,000, the Norfolk-based newspaper said. The companies all use Google’s program to display ads based on search results.
The court dispute is over filtering technology to determine placement of advertisements on search results. Vringo also claimed it was entitled to royalties going as far back as 2004, when Google first implemented its Smart Ads system.
Google, which reported revenue of $11.3 billion in the third quarter, denied infringing the patents and argued they were invalid.
The case is I/P Engine Inc. v. AOL Inc., 11-cv-512, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia (Norfolk).
