Replies to post #79827 on UnifiedOnline Inc fka UOIP

[pillskill]

IMHO exactly defiantly one of the motivators for their maneuverings. I was reading a disclosure in Cisco's annual issued recently and they claim there are good Defenses ( they lost the IPRs so not sure what they are gonna argue) and even if they lose it won't be "material" all of these companies are lying to their shareholders again imho

[AllinFun]

Problem for them there is as Andrews said the trials will be scheduled like rapid fire after the first decision is made. That precedent will be set forth for all further trials. There is nothing to argue after precedent is set besides how much do you owe based on the formula that had been accepted in the first trial on a per unit basis. The only other thing to argue or defend is Comcast and their willfulness infringement claim. So regardless I think Comcast would be smart only to indemnify Cox in order to force them to go to trial and have their lawyers draw it out and argue. No reason to indemnify anyone else that would benefit them in anyway.

[TonyJoe1957]

"If the big players planned to indemnify all along, it weakens their argument for separate trials."

What an excellent point!

[long uoip]

Plaintiffs argue in favor of aggregate damages because doing so can simplify their damages proof & administrate management of the case.
at the same time however, while aggregate damages calculations can be simpler, they are less precise because they do not take into account variations among the plaintiff class that will likely reduce the damages, potentially by a large amount.

court confronts the question whethere plaintiffs can aggregate damages at trial so that the jury can make a single determination of damages applicable to all plaintiffs in the class, notwithstanding the fact that the damages can vary widely accross the class.