The SA article says "implemented". Are they saying Google's formal response only says "designed"? If true, that proves the SA article is a short attack.
Here is the article wording:
Having raised a number of arguments (some unlikely to succeed) in attempt to knock down or entirely eliminate the ongoing running royalties, one headline from Google's filing last night stood out. Google represented to the Court that it has implemented a workaround to Vringo's patents. This representation should not be viewed lightly. Google's attorneys have legal and ethical obligations to tell the truth to the Court, and they submitted sworn affidavit testimony that is punishable by a felony perjury count if untrue or unfounded. (See multiple Google declarations in support of their brief) Google claimed that the workaround is one that falls outside the scope of any of Vringo's infringement arguments. So according to Google, as of May 11, 2013 -- it no longer infringes the '420 and '664 patents even under Vringo's infringement theories. So if there is any ongoing royalty, it should be limited to a royalty base covering a very limited period of time. In prior filings, Google had hinted that they were implementing a workaround. In last night's filing, they confirmed that it is already in place.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
