cfvaughnii's  Instablog

Send Message
I am a private investor.
  • When Will The VRNG Damages Nightmare END? 6 comments
    Nov 7, 2012 3:19 PM | about stocks: FH, GOOG

    In the following post Mikehd25 does a nice job of detailing the possible clerical error here.

    There are a few key facts to be derived from this information.

    The Jury was almost certainly working with the $493M damages estimate, including $451M for Google. This estimate was provided by Dr. Becker for the period Sept 15, 2005 - Sept 2012.

    The laches ruling reduced this to Sept 15, 2011 through Sept 2012, and the jury decided that this shorter period represented 35% of the total damages.

    The jury applied 35% to the total $493M figure to get damages amounts for AOL, Gannet, Target and IAC.

    Did the jury intentionally use 3.5% for the Google damages resulting in a 15.9M settlement, or was this an error in calculation?

    If 3.5% was used intentionally, will the judge accept this amount?

    If not, can the Judge reverse this apparent miscalculation?

    I'm not a lawyer, and don't know how this kind of thing works in court.

    Disclosure: I am long VRNG.

    Stocks: FH, GOOG
Back To cfvaughnii's Instablog HomePage »

Instablogs are blogs which are instantly set up and networked within the Seeking Alpha community. Instablog posts are not selected, edited or screened by Seeking Alpha editors, in contrast to contributors' articles.

Comments (6)
Track new comments
  • kadison
    , contributor
    Comments (327) | Send Message
    what is the jury wrongly applied 35% to AOL, Gannet, Target and IAC?
    7 Nov 2012, 03:29 PM Reply Like
  • cfvaughnii
    , contributor
    Comments (58) | Send Message
    Author’s reply » You mean what if? I guess it is possible, but it isn't rational to use 3.5%.


    The 35% number is based on damages beginning September 15, 2011 instead of September 15, 2005.


    Revenues for the longer period were ~$179B, revenues for the shorter period were ~$68B. 68/179 => 38%. They could have used 35% or 40%, or even 38% to approximate damages for the shorter period. I think they meant to use 35% for all parties.
    7 Nov 2012, 03:35 PM Reply Like
  • kadison
    , contributor
    Comments (327) | Send Message
    I hope so!
    7 Nov 2012, 03:39 PM Reply Like
  • Jolk
    , contributor
    Comments (306) | Send Message
    It would, or it should, never be allowed to only penalize an infringing party only 0.1225% which is 3.5% of (3.5% of 20%). That has to be an error and stricken from the record or else all future patent trials will use this as a precedent and Patent Pirates will be more or less free to steal and infringe patents from here on out.
    7 Nov 2012, 05:31 PM Reply Like
  • Prescient Investment Analysis
    , contributor
    Comments (262) | Send Message
    Maybe we do not have access to all of the information here, but it sounds to me like the judge is going to have to confer with the jury...


    There may have been ambiguous instructions to those who watched the case and issued a verdict. Maybe that is the type of thing other lawyers pay attention to when they rate each other on
    7 Nov 2012, 04:32 PM Reply Like
  • cfvaughnii
    , contributor
    Comments (58) | Send Message
    Author’s reply » This has been a tough week.
    7 Nov 2012, 07:15 PM Reply Like
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers


  • $GILD
    Aug 27, 2014
  • Pacer Link for JJ ruling on $FH?
    Jan 28, 2014
  • Why aren't the $FH warrants (VRNGWS) moving? Still to low to budge them?
    Jan 22, 2014
More »

Latest Comments

Instablogs are Seeking Alpha's free blogging platform customized for finance, with instant set up and exposure to millions of readers interested in the financial markets. Publish your own instablog in minutes.