Google Claims To Have Defeated Vringo Search Patents [View article]
Yes, very clearly over the top. What was intended is that QE represents a party to fabrication. Google has consistently taken positions that have not been borne out in the litigation, whether by judge or jury. Specifically, their analysis was that their existing operations did not infringe on the Lang patents. They put a lot of eggs in that basket, and they were very sorely mistaken. So given their demonstrated ability to discern infringing behavior from non-infringing behavior, it's hard to put any particular stock in their current statement that their so-called workaround doesn't infringe.
The point is, I'm more interested in Dr. Frieder's infringement analysis than QE's.
Google Claims To Have Defeated Vringo Search Patents [View article]
Just resting my weary joints. Still following the story, although in reality, the only story that is really left at this point is determination of the future royalties. The rest of this stuff seems to me to be mainly water cooler conversation until real news hits.
Google Claims To Have Defeated Vringo Search Patents [View article]
It should go without saying, but I would urge you not to take QE at their word. They are lawyers, paid to create and advocate legal positions. Thus, when they say they have created a workaround, my knee jerk reaction is that they have made some "changes" to the code that most likely either (1) don't alter the infringement analysis; or (2) sacrifice ad matching efficiency. Worse (for Google), their alleged workaround could do both, i.e., cause poorer results and still infringe. Remember, there is a reason that Google themselves in their own internal memos referred to their own system as "DumbAds" (sic) and Vringo's system as "SmartAds" (sic). Remember, not long ago, Google and QE were stamping their feet and insisting their system didn't infringe. Do you really think they have invented a better mousetrap? Just because QE says so?
Idle Thoughts While We Wait For Judge Jackson [View instapost]
"Faintest idea?" Well, let's see. Google lost the Markman hearings, the MSJ, its motions for judgment as a matter of law, and has renewed those motions post-trial, which are pending. If those pending motions are denied, don't you think the chances are quite high that Google will file an appeal? I do. Now let's say that Google files an appeal, which I think is highly likely. Once Google has appealed, I don't think there is any chance that Vringo decides not to cross-appeal the laches issue.
I suppose if total disaster strikes and Judge Jackson grants Google's post-trial motions, then Google would not file an appeal. I view that as very unlikely. But that, barring settlement (which I gave up on long ago), is the only scenario I see where Google does not file an appeal.
And no, I would venture to guess that even given the craziness of this case, it is safe to say that 18 years is not possible.
Idle Thoughts While We Wait For Judge Jackson [View instapost]
The comments I made are not specific to patent issues, but to appellate timelines in the Federal Circuit. So if you want to ask me do I think "x" patent fails for obviousness, my answer is "your guess is as good as mine." If you want to ask me whether a motion appears to raise a genuine issue of material fact, such that summary judgment is unlikely, or how long civil appeal time periods are, I feel like my feet touch ground there.
I am sorry if you feel as though providing information regarding realistic timelines is "creating fears and doubts," but frankly, i think we all deserve to have a realistic understanding of potential and likely timelines in this case, if they are pertinent to folks' investing strategy.
Are you of the opinion that an appeal would be resolved in just a couple of months? Would you want folks to bet on that? As far as fears and doubts, I think by far those are created by lack of understanding of the potential results and timelines. If folks know what to expect, they can strategize. Isn't that a good thing?
Idle Thoughts While We Wait For Judge Jackson [View instapost]
Hey, Tyler. Once the tolling motions are resolved, the parties have 30 days to file notices of appeal. I would not be surprised if there is a couple weeks of lag before notices of appeal are filed.
Idle Thoughts While We Wait For Judge Jackson [View instapost]
Hi, Doc.
As far as immediate impact on stock price, the current issue is really are what happens with the post-trial motions, as you know. I think it is pretty clear that both sides will file notice of appeal. The most important thing to be aware of is that the appeal process is not a quick process. Once Judge Jackson issues his final rulings in this case, the parties would file their notices of appeal, then over a period of several months, their opening briefs, answering briefs, and reply briefs would come due. From that point, it would be fair to estimate 10 to 12 months before the appellate court issues a decision. So the whole process could easily be 12 to 18 months. That's a little far down the line.
That having been said, I don't have a great basis to begin to guess at the potential appeal outcome until we see the briefs, but I do feel good about the way Judge Jackson handled all the issues that Google might appeal from.
Google Request To Postpone Vringo Ongoing Royalty Motion Ignored [View article]
Kevin, you don't have to agree with my "strange forecasts." I think folks need and deserve to have a realistic viewpoint, and indeed there are several realistic viewpoints available on the board. Folks talk about a one day trial as if it would be a simple and uncomplicated matter, when in fact I think it is a bit of a complex equation. I look at it like a loose thread from a shirt. You have to be careful which threads you pull on, otherwise you may find that the thread is a lot longer than you think, and pretty soon a sleeve falls off.
Google Request To Postpone Vringo Ongoing Royalty Motion Ignored [View article]
Of course he would be admitting a mistake. The jury did not have the right numbers to work with because of the timing of his laches ruling. Judge Jackson made the decision on laches AFTER Vringo's damages expert had testified. If Judge Jackson had ruled earlier, then the expert witness could have given the jury the EXACT number of damages that are attributable for each defendant from the date of filing of the Complaint. Because of the timing of Judge Jackson's ruling, the jury had to extrapolate the numbers, and it seems clear they made a mistake.
Google Request To Postpone Vringo Ongoing Royalty Motion Ignored [View article]
There is no reliable answer to your very good question, John. This stuff does not happen every day. But, retrials happen with some frequency after appeals, or sometimes after motions for new trials. I don't believe they EVER call back the same jury. It would be a new jury, as I doubt that Google would ever agree to waive its right to a jury trial.
Google Request To Postpone Vringo Ongoing Royalty Motion Ignored [View article]
Hi, John. Happy Holidays, now that they are over. I think a lot of us are waiting for the briefing to be done on the post-trial motions so we can try to figure them out, although the only one I am really interested in is the running royalty motion. Vringo's other motions are indeed very tantalizing, but in the end, I just don't think there is a great chance that Judge Jackson will reverse his laches decision or grant a new one day trial on past damages. Though there is a lot of merit to them, those really tough motions for Vringo to win, because winning requires persuading a Federal Court Judge to make a very public concession that he made a big mistake. I don't see that happening, which is why I am not overly excited about Vringo's other post-trial motions (although again, I think they have a lot of merit). As for ZTE, I am trying to wrap my brain around those cases, to figure out the damage claims and timelines. From what I have gleaned so far, the UK and Germany are pretty favorable jurisdictions for Vringo.
Google Request To Postpone Vringo Ongoing Royalty Motion Ignored [View article]
This is hugely significant to the valuation issue. In many ways, the patent litigation in Europe has greater upside for Vringo, because of the availability of injunctive relief against ZTE there as opposed to here. Note that in the Google case, Vringo did not even bother to allege a claim asking for an injunction, whereas injunctive relief is very much in play in the pending ZTE litigation. That having been said, it is really difficult to factor the European litigation into Vringo's valuation, because there frankly isn't really any information out there (except from Jim Altucher's pretty optimistic point of view) that would assist in doing such a valuation. What I would like to know (and what I am trying to find out) is what is the magnitude in dollars of damages that Vringo is seeking from ZTE, and what are the timelines.
Google Request To Postpone Vringo Ongoing Royalty Motion Ignored [View article]
Actually, the fact that Judge Jackson granted Google's motion to postpone briefing is a non-event. Although the timing of the order in relation to the article is amusing, the fact of the matter is that Dan's article was actually pretty accurate from my point of view. The Judge's decision basically had the predictability of a coin toss, in that it could go either way. Dan's analysis was pretty rational, although the fact that the Judge went the other way really should not be any big surprise, because there was no wrong decision here. The decision was purely discretionary, and had no substantive impact whatsoever.
Google Claims To Have Defeated Vringo Search Patents [View article]
The point is, I'm more interested in Dr. Frieder's infringement analysis than QE's.
Google Claims To Have Defeated Vringo Search Patents [View article]
Google Claims To Have Defeated Vringo Search Patents [View article]
Google Claims To Have Defeated Vringo Search Patents [View article]
Idle Thoughts While We Wait For Judge Jackson [View instapost]
I suppose if total disaster strikes and Judge Jackson grants Google's post-trial motions, then Google would not file an appeal. I view that as very unlikely. But that, barring settlement (which I gave up on long ago), is the only scenario I see where Google does not file an appeal.
And no, I would venture to guess that even given the craziness of this case, it is safe to say that 18 years is not possible.
Idle Thoughts While We Wait For Judge Jackson [View instapost]
I am sorry if you feel as though providing information regarding realistic timelines is "creating fears and doubts," but frankly, i think we all deserve to have a realistic understanding of potential and likely timelines in this case, if they are pertinent to folks' investing strategy.
Are you of the opinion that an appeal would be resolved in just a couple of months? Would you want folks to bet on that? As far as fears and doubts, I think by far those are created by lack of understanding of the potential results and timelines. If folks know what to expect, they can strategize. Isn't that a good thing?
Idle Thoughts While We Wait For Judge Jackson [View instapost]
Idle Thoughts While We Wait For Judge Jackson [View instapost]
As far as immediate impact on stock price, the current issue is really are what happens with the post-trial motions, as you know. I think it is pretty clear that both sides will file notice of appeal. The most important thing to be aware of is that the appeal process is not a quick process. Once Judge Jackson issues his final rulings in this case, the parties would file their notices of appeal, then over a period of several months, their opening briefs, answering briefs, and reply briefs would come due. From that point, it would be fair to estimate 10 to 12 months before the appellate court issues a decision. So the whole process could easily be 12 to 18 months. That's a little far down the line.
That having been said, I don't have a great basis to begin to guess at the potential appeal outcome until we see the briefs, but I do feel good about the way Judge Jackson handled all the issues that Google might appeal from.
Google Request To Postpone Vringo Ongoing Royalty Motion Ignored [View article]
Google Request To Postpone Vringo Ongoing Royalty Motion Ignored [View article]
Google Request To Postpone Vringo Ongoing Royalty Motion Ignored [View article]
Google Request To Postpone Vringo Ongoing Royalty Motion Ignored [View article]
Google Request To Postpone Vringo Ongoing Royalty Motion Ignored [View article]
Google Request To Postpone Vringo Ongoing Royalty Motion Ignored [View article]
Google Request To Postpone Vringo Ongoing Royalty Motion Ignored [View article]