InvestorsHub Logo

stocksrus44

04/09/14 10:35 AM

#52002 RE: Patentinvestor #52000

I like GOOGs argument that since VRNG only paid $3.2 million for the parents they shouldn't be entitled to this large of an award.

That's like saying "Well this antique is normally worth $100,000 but since you only paid $5 at a garage sale for it it's now only worth $20."

Alphi

04/09/14 10:37 AM

#52003 RE: Patentinvestor #52000

GOOG lawyers are trying to sow doubt into the mind of the appellate judge.

Since the judge looking after the appeals wasn't present at trial and doesn't know what went on in Mr Jacksons mind all they need to do is catch him off balance..

so now it comes down to how thorough Mr Jackson was with his rulings and how clearly he reasoned his decisions.

ultimately I believe GOOG will fail again because Mr Jacksons process was excruciatingly (for VRNG investors) thorough and VRNG have the better legal counsel.

GOOG will not surrender the siege, so we have to wait for starvation and disease to force them out.

hondobud

04/09/14 12:47 PM

#52014 RE: Patentinvestor #52000

Google's appeal sounds like they are starting to crack. Thanks for posting the brief PI and I agree. This language seems now affecting the stock trading today. I like the fact this stock poked green Friday b4 the market bounce may be on some advance leak of this appeal brief.