Replies to post #42499 on XpresSpa Group Inc (XSPA)

[JJSeabrook]

Being a computer illiterate, as I am, one would think that there would be "some" requirement to point out what it is in the Source Code that actually makes it colorably different rather than just producing reams of code requiring a line by line review to see what is different. On the flip side, it's up to VRNG to prove that the work around is no more than colorably different. It will be interesting to see how the court handles this.

JJ


Realizer

Friday, August 30, 2013 12:42:41 PM
Re: None
Post # of 42499
Google may have made a critical error here.

If they have not given V or anyone else for that matter enough documentation to prove the matter then HJJ can say to Google this is what you provided and this is what the ruling will be based upon. Therefore, the Work around issue will be dead until brought up on a separate case. Experts should only be able to discuss the evidence submitted. Giving V the advantage. IMO

If anyone sees this differently I encourage your responses.

[Lazercat]

I think the problem is that the burden is on VRNG to dismiss the workaround exists - it wouldn't be in their favor to have to make the argument based on the material they have - they are asking for everything relevant to assessing the workaround - therefore they can prove w/out a shadow of doubt that it is no more than colorably different.

To that end, it makes sense that VRNG ask the magistrate or judge to either rule now that

A) The workaround is not colorably different...

or

B) VRNG be provided with all technical, custodial, and other material evidence and provisions (regarding time and ability to work w/ source "around the clock" in their own secure settings) necessary to make a solid case against GOOG.

VRNG wants everything - they want to put the final nail in the coffin.