Replies to post #21699 on XpresSpa Group Inc (XSPA)

[JJSeabrook]

1. Plaintiff's motion is premature. That may be true. Until other potential rulings are made, the past damages are not set yet. I can buy that. Actually seemed like a quick filing for me. Not a biggie. The Judge can hold off on the ruling until the appropriate time. Doesn't affect anything.

[JJSeabrook]

Thank you for the link xlt! Going to take more time to digest this than I can do tonight.

Just as the Court found laches, on his own initiative, he could POTENTIALLY disallow prejudgment interest. What I'm seeing, at this point, and I haven't read through all of this, is that the Court found laches, but the damages for past infringement are awarded. I'm going to have to read this closely, and actually look at the Supreme Court cases cited to form my own, personal, opinion.

Folks have to understand that court opinions, even Supreme Court opinions, are subject to interpretation. You find a blurb you like, you jump all over it.

Past my bed time. Good shot across the bow by the GOOG attorneys, and I would expect no less. I'm not dishearted by what I have read so far. VRNG has a week to respond, and they will do so accordingly.

Nite all. I've been a little ill and just can't hang with this any more tonight. Surgery in January. I'm just really tired.

JJ