InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 123
Posts 3857
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 01/19/2002

Re: ive been had post# 39831

Sunday, 08/04/2013 4:53:20 PM

Sunday, August 04, 2013 4:53:20 PM

Post# of 68424
You are splitting hairs over an inconsequential paraphrasing that I used. Yes, the exact language is "The Defendants shall have FIVE (5) DAYS to respond to Plaintiffs calculations."

Regardless, my post is NOT "totally wrong". My point is still 100% valid. I said this was not an entirely settled point and logically the judge was still taking the matter under consideration.

The language from the order supports my point. The order specifically says:

The Court FINDS that I/P Engine is entitled to supplemental damages for October 1, 2012 to November 20, 2012, in an amount to be determined...

The order speaks for itself. The judge is asking for VRNG's calculation. He is allowing GOOG to respond. He has not determined anything yet. Nothing has been guaranteed.

Let the story play out and stop "wishing" things to be the way you desperately hope they will be.