Replies to post #39745 on XpresSpa Group Inc (XSPA)

[mshanley]

Yes but the jury, themselves, caused confusion because if their outlier award against GOOG. We all know in mathematics the commutative property, but GOOG is arguing they jury intended their base to be 2.8%, but without knowing their equation we have no idea which of the factors was flubbed. The may have used 20.9%, and 3.5%, and simply misconstrued the 35% as 3.5% for the shortened time because of laches. But we don't know and it's given GOOG the opportunity to present this other royalty base argument.

[arper]

I'm glad you are sure. I don't know WHAT the h*** HJMJ is going to do! lol. And I think the uncertainty is reflected in the share price. Once he rules, the pps will reflect his ruling. Also, I don't know if the recent order for past interest and supplemental damages up until time of jury verdict will be calc differently from future RR........ (separate order). I realized a month or so after the screwy decimal point jury award that the bigger issue was not going to be the past damages or 30.9 mill versus 150 mill, but the effect on rulings going forward. To me, this is holding to be the case...... Which ever way, HJJ rules, it is sure to be part of the appeal process by GOOG. However, if he does rule for the 3.5 of 20.9 (or greater), I'll be breathing a sigh of relief and expect the pps to levitate.

good luck!

arp