AI
Sunday, August 04, 2013 2:41:26 PM
That's a lie. He never once wrote 20.9%.
Just to clarify some facts:
The motion presented in 792 never mentions an apportionment amount 20.9% once. The accompanying memorandum of law does mention 20.9% one time as the apportionment percentage to be applied against GOOG's U.S. Revenue. Dr. Becker's statement (794) states his opinion that the court should use 20.9%. Exhibit 1 that was attached to 792 was VRNG's proposed order for the court to use and it specified the apportioned royalty base of 20.9% multiplied by 3.5%. The court did not use VRNG's proposed order nor did it use the specific language and figures contained within that proposed order.
The judge's order (960) does not mention 20.9% or any other apportionment percentage. On the issue of supplemental damages, HJJ ruled that VRNG is entitled to such damages. That's it. He is now waiting on GOOG to supply the court with the requested revenue data and after that is received VRNG is instructed to to submit its calculation of the damages within 5 days and then GOOG has 5 days after that to respond with its own calculations. The judge also says the amount has yet to be determined. This means the judge has granted VRNG's motion but has yet to adopt all of the variables presented in VRNG's memorandum, its expert testimony from DR Becker, and its proposed order to the court.
The court may very well grant 20.9% as the apportionment percentage for supplemental damages and later on for the issue of ongoing royalties. But it has yet to do that regardless of what the ultra-bulls would like everyone to believe.
If you do not believe me, read the exact excerpts from the order (Doc 960) included below:
Just to clarify some facts:
The motion presented in 792 never mentions an apportionment amount 20.9% once. The accompanying memorandum of law does mention 20.9% one time as the apportionment percentage to be applied against GOOG's U.S. Revenue. Dr. Becker's statement (794) states his opinion that the court should use 20.9%. Exhibit 1 that was attached to 792 was VRNG's proposed order for the court to use and it specified the apportioned royalty base of 20.9% multiplied by 3.5%. The court did not use VRNG's proposed order nor did it use the specific language and figures contained within that proposed order.
The judge's order (960) does not mention 20.9% or any other apportionment percentage. On the issue of supplemental damages, HJJ ruled that VRNG is entitled to such damages. That's it. He is now waiting on GOOG to supply the court with the requested revenue data and after that is received VRNG is instructed to to submit its calculation of the damages within 5 days and then GOOG has 5 days after that to respond with its own calculations. The judge also says the amount has yet to be determined. This means the judge has granted VRNG's motion but has yet to adopt all of the variables presented in VRNG's memorandum, its expert testimony from DR Becker, and its proposed order to the court.
The court may very well grant 20.9% as the apportionment percentage for supplemental damages and later on for the issue of ongoing royalties. But it has yet to do that regardless of what the ultra-bulls would like everyone to believe.
If you do not believe me, read the exact excerpts from the order (Doc 960) included below:
