Replies to post #42627 on XpresSpa Group Inc (XSPA)

[BARHENDER]

postyle,

Once again, thank you for your clarification. Your contributions to this MB are appreciated.

[NlikeFlynn]

I think there are further pieces of the Microsoft/VRNG puzzle that we are not aware of which is buried somewhere in those patents they acquired from MS. I don't believe VRNG would would settle for something that would not benefit them in the future in-spite of any cap on payment from MS. Why would they agree to something that would not be beneficial to them? If the amounts received from GOOG "substantially exceed" the judgement previously awarded, then i would think that alone would offset any negatives to the Microsoft/VRNG settlement anyway.

[Ipittydafoo]

I respectfully and completely disagree with you postyle.

This quote says it all to me.

The parties also agreed to a limitation on Microsoft's total liability, which would not impact the Company unless the amounts received from Google substantially exceed the judgment previously awarded.

As I stated before, if you read that last bit "unless the amounts received be google...."

Now, in my mind, clearly there is some sort of adjustment that occurs if google damages greatly exceed the 30 million.

What that is, who knows but as I said there is very much reason for this.

Why?

1. Well what would cause Google damages to be significantly higher? An RR correct?

2. How do they get an RR? well if JJ awards one, and they are held up on appeals.

3. How does 2 occur? ONLY if the USPTO upholds the patents.

4. From this I deduce this clause was put into place by MSFT as an escape hatch, out clause in case the patents were deemed invalid (ie why pay an rr if the patents are invalid, and I as msft are not paying that upfront before I know the outcome of that - ie so they piggybacked googles request for review).

5. One can then deduce, an RR is coming from MSFT as the adjustment once this is done. While not significant like Google's numbers, it should provide more money to the pot.