Oh the shorts get it!! At least the institutional ones do. What ever happens Monday will be the result of those shorts. Whether we pop and drop or we shoot to da moon retail is just playing along.
When you see 850,000 share blocks at 25mil dollars you need to understand that it is their game.
Somebody mentioned 7% institutional ownership. That is old news there is now 15-20% and that only accounts for Russell. We've seen some huge buying since then. If I had to guess as to the real % I would think 20-25%. This may seem high but the price action and the charts over the last couple months support big time accumulation. Add that with increased short positions and you get a stock that has been held in check for a reason.
The motion presented in 792 never mentions an apportionment amount 20.9% once. The accompanying memorandum of law does mention 20.9% one time as the apportionment percentage to be applied against GOOG's U.S. Revenue. Dr. Becker's statement (794) states his opinion that the court should use 20.9%. Exhibit 1 that was attached to 792 was VRNG's proposed order for the court to use and it specified the apportioned royalty base of 20.9% multiplied by 3.5%. The court did not use VRNG's proposed order nor did it use the specific language and figures contained within that proposed order.
The judge's order (960) does not mention 20.9% or any other apportionment percentage. On the issue of supplemental damages, HJJ ruled that VRNG is entitled to such damages. That's it. He is now waiting on GOOG to supply the court with the requested revenue data and after that is received VRNG is instructed to to submit its calculation of the damages within 5 days and then GOOG has 5 days after that to respond with its own calculations. The judge also says the amount has yet to be determined. This means the judge has granted VRNG's motion but has yet to adopt all of the variables presented in VRNG's memorandum, its expert testimony from DR Becker, and its proposed order to the court.
The court may very well grant 20.9% as the apportionment percentage for supplemental damages and later on for the issue of ongoing royalties. But it has yet to do that regardless of what the ultra-bulls would like everyone to believe.
If you do not believe me, read the exact excerpts from the order (Doc 960) included below:
If you can find that HJJ clearly stated 20.9% and 3.5% in his latest document, could you please do me the favor of cutting and pasting it? I do not see this anywhere in the document, only in a PROPOSED order submitted by VRNG in 2012.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
