Vringo Vs. Google: Ongoing Royalty Prediction [View article]
I arrived at the same conclusion, based on Fed. Cir. precedent and the Active Video case, although I think there is a chance that the judge may split the baby a little on the royalty base. Granted, GOOG's all or nothing approach there makes it easy to reject outright.
I also think that there is a decent chance that the judge sets the rate for the November '12 to May '13 infringement and either orders expert discovery on the alleged workaround or invites a round of briefing on it.
Saying that Google has flip-flopped "yet again" on royalties, however, is wrong. They never flip flopped in the first place, which is obvious from, among other things, the JMOL briefings earlier this year. You know that, or at least you should, and you shouldn't keep repeating that.
This space is, and has been, a high risk, high reward, binary outcome scenario in a relatively slowly moving system. If you cannot accept that, then this space is not right for you and your money.
Vringo: A Patent Play Stock Ready To Explode Again [View article]
VRNG is building a business. They need more quality portfolios. Patents to them are as good as cash, adjusting for risk and NPV. The same is not true for the market. That's one of the dynamics that creates such great opportunities and volatility in this space.
Can Judge Jackson Still Ignore Google's Work-Around? [View article]
I saw that too.
Markman Advisors, if you are writing articles on this case and purporting to be a patent expert, you can't get central and critical issues in the case 100% wrong, like saying that the jury decided a royalty base of 20.9%.
How Will Judge Jackson Handle Google's Confirmed Workaround? [View article]
Alan why do you despise them on philosophical grounds? I have never worked for or represented a troll/NPE, and have battled many. I never had a problem with the NPE thing itself. The problem is some of the economic distortions, questionable assertions, extortions, and shady cases that you often see - the bad tactics. VRNG seems to have a reasonably good case.
If you do not like trolls, isn't that like saying you should be able to infringe a valid and infringed patent because the person bought the asset or because you don't like their business model? How are traders more virtuous? Should a trader be prevented from re-selling a stock or taking a dividend because he did not create the underlying asset and his model is to buy the rights and cash in - i.e., enforce?
What about someone who does not make movies or music, but buys the rights to a catalog for the royalties? Do you have a problem with that? Are beatles songs free now because MJ did not create them?
How Will Judge Jackson Handle Google's Confirmed Workaround? [View article]
Where is the legal analysis? Why don't you publish your names on your website or on SA?
Before anyone gets worked up about Google's representations about the system it threw the switch on three days ago, don't forget Google's original position: its old system did not infringe either. In fact, they claimed noninfringement was so clear that they filed for summary judgment, and for judgment as a matter of law. Turns out they were wrong about that. And about validity. And about damages. And they had the same obligations to the court as they do now.
I am not saying that the workaround does or does not infringe, but one thing is for sure, you can't take Google's word for it. One sided arguments always sound pretty good.
And the '420 final office action should not be a major factor in the royalty determination, because the '664 is unaffected, so Google's bargaining position is no better even assuming the '420 is out (which would be a premature assumption) - it still faces valid claims.
Love the disclosure: "Some members hedged against those risks by buying put options, which were closed as well." Combined with yesterday's disclosure the translation is: We bet wrong that the stock would drop below $2.50 after Google's motion, and closed our losing trade today.
How Long Until Vringo's Verdict Against Google Pays Off? [View article]
Hey look, another anonymous patent expert on the internet. Welcome to the party.
It is curious that members of your team bought puts in advance of Google's opposition, as that does not seem to be dependent on legal or technical analysis, and you guys hold yourselves out as legal experts. Buying puts before the opposition brief seems to anticipate panic selling in response to Google's anticipated design around and reexam arguments - but those cats were already out of the bag.
I have only skimmed Google's opposition, but I spotted several questionable assertions, some of which may affect credibility. For example, Google says the factor of "Defendants' size and financial condition" is neutral because both companies are "large, publicly traded companies." I actually laughed out loud when I read that.
Google Claims To Have Defeated Vringo Search Patents [View article]
PP, using those emails about scheduling discovery, in order to evaluate a design around, is ridiculous.
Basing your argument on the stock price is no better - closing price before this broke was $3.01. Current price is down 5% from that. That's a pathetic argument that the market has validated a design around that's going to kill VRNG's search patents.
The bottom line is that you don't know a single detail about the supposed design around, and neither does VRNG or anyone other than GOOG.
No offense, but I won't be continuing this discussion.
Vringo Vs. Google: Ongoing Royalty Prediction [View article]
What do you think it means?
Vringo Vs. Google: Ongoing Royalty Prediction [View article]
I also think that there is a decent chance that the judge sets the rate for the November '12 to May '13 infringement and either orders expert discovery on the alleged workaround or invites a round of briefing on it.
Saying that Google has flip-flopped "yet again" on royalties, however, is wrong. They never flip flopped in the first place, which is obvious from, among other things, the JMOL briefings earlier this year. You know that, or at least you should, and you shouldn't keep repeating that.
Vringo: Where's The Money? [View article]
Vringo: Where's The Money? [View article]
Vringo: A Patent Play Stock Ready To Explode Again [View article]
Vringo: A Patent Play Stock Ready To Explode Again [View article]
Vringo: A Patent Play Stock Ready To Explode Again [View article]
Can Judge Jackson Still Ignore Google's Work-Around? [View article]
Can Judge Jackson Still Ignore Google's Work-Around? [View article]
Markman Advisors, if you are writing articles on this case and purporting to be a patent expert, you can't get central and critical issues in the case 100% wrong, like saying that the jury decided a royalty base of 20.9%.
How Will Judge Jackson Handle Google's Confirmed Workaround? [View article]
If you do not like trolls, isn't that like saying you should be able to infringe a valid and infringed patent because the person bought the asset or because you don't like their business model? How are traders more virtuous? Should a trader be prevented from re-selling a stock or taking a dividend because he did not create the underlying asset and his model is to buy the rights and cash in - i.e., enforce?
What about someone who does not make movies or music, but buys the rights to a catalog for the royalties? Do you have a problem with that? Are beatles songs free now because MJ did not create them?
Intresting area of thought and debate.
How Will Judge Jackson Handle Google's Confirmed Workaround? [View article]
Before anyone gets worked up about Google's representations about the system it threw the switch on three days ago, don't forget Google's original position: its old system did not infringe either. In fact, they claimed noninfringement was so clear that they filed for summary judgment, and for judgment as a matter of law. Turns out they were wrong about that. And about validity. And about damages. And they had the same obligations to the court as they do now.
I am not saying that the workaround does or does not infringe, but one thing is for sure, you can't take Google's word for it. One sided arguments always sound pretty good.
And the '420 final office action should not be a major factor in the royalty determination, because the '664 is unaffected, so Google's bargaining position is no better even assuming the '420 is out (which would be a premature assumption) - it still faces valid claims.
Love the disclosure: "Some members hedged against those risks by buying put options, which were closed as well." Combined with yesterday's disclosure the translation is: We bet wrong that the stock would drop below $2.50 after Google's motion, and closed our losing trade today.
How Long Until Vringo's Verdict Against Google Pays Off? [View article]
In the money calls: 8,257
Out of the money calls: 70,293
In the money puts: 13,279
Out of the money puts: 9,113
How Long Until Vringo's Verdict Against Google Pays Off? [View article]
It is curious that members of your team bought puts in advance of Google's opposition, as that does not seem to be dependent on legal or technical analysis, and you guys hold yourselves out as legal experts. Buying puts before the opposition brief seems to anticipate panic selling in response to Google's anticipated design around and reexam arguments - but those cats were already out of the bag.
I have only skimmed Google's opposition, but I spotted several questionable assertions, some of which may affect credibility. For example, Google says the factor of "Defendants' size and financial condition" is neutral because both companies are "large, publicly traded companies." I actually laughed out loud when I read that.
How Long Until Vringo's Verdict Against Google Pays Off? [View article]
Google Claims To Have Defeated Vringo Search Patents [View article]
Basing your argument on the stock price is no better - closing price before this broke was $3.01. Current price is down 5% from that. That's a pathetic argument that the market has validated a design around that's going to kill VRNG's search patents.
The bottom line is that you don't know a single detail about the supposed design around, and neither does VRNG or anyone other than GOOG.
No offense, but I won't be continuing this discussion.