Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
  • Vringo Vs. Google: The Sky's Not Falling  [View article]
    I said you have little trial experience. I did not say you had none. Furthermore, arguing before appellate courts most certainly does not constitute trial experience. A whole different ball game.
    Dec 7, 2012. 08:40 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: The Sky's Not Falling  [View article]
    Mr. Ravicher, you are wrong on this. Steve is correct. Read the jury verdict. There is no check box on the jury form for "reasonable royalty." The choices as indicated on the verdict form are: Lump Sum Royalty and Running Royalty. The jury checked Running Royalty. The next question on the jury verdict form then asks them if they chose a running royalty, what should be the rate for a running royalty expressed in a percentage. The jury hand wrote in 3.5%.
    Mr. Ravicher, please stop saying demonstrably incorrect things. (oops, that is a double negative.)
    Dec 6, 2012. 11:24 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: The Sky's Not Falling  [View article]
    My thoughts exactly. Mr. Ravicher has little trial experience except for a short stint at a law firm.
    Dec 6, 2012. 09:34 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: Verdict Imminent, Trading Halted  [View instapost]
    The only thing that was redacted was the forepersons name.
    Nov 9, 2012. 02:34 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: Verdict Imminent, Trading Halted  [View instapost]
    It appears the jury made a mistake in the math. If this is the case, the judge will correct it. Now keep in mind the judge after reading the verdict page by page very careful asked for it back after it was read aloud by the court clerk to double check something that he obviously didn't see the first time. He recessed for 5 minutes and then decided to recess for the rest of the day and gave instructions to counsel to file any motions that are appropriate. It does appear that the jury miscalculated googles damages at 15.8 million. It should have been 158 million.
    Nov 7, 2012. 12:03 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: Verdict Imminent, Trading Halted  [View instapost]
    What will happen next is this: The judge will most likely today have instructed counsel for both sides to file any motions in regard to the verdict. He will review said motions and then rule on them and make his decision in regard to damages going forward. He can modify the jurys verdict but in most cases, unless there is clear and compelling evidence that the jury got it wrong, the judge will go with what the jury has decided. Steve should jump in here and give us an idea of what to expect in the next few days regarding civil procedure after a verdict has been announced.
    Nov 6, 2012. 04:52 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: Verdict Imminent, Trading Halted  [View instapost]
    At present, the shorts have run through the stops set by the longs. In my opinion, this is a classic play: sell the news buy the rumor. The judge still has to rule on future damages and by all accounts will be substantial if he uses the 3.5% royalty rate. One news report indicated this could be as much as $125 million for each of the next five years, (through 2016) which would total above $600 million. Based on the questions the jury was asking over the last few days, it became clear they were going to rule in favor of VRNG. With that in mind, I took off all my downside stops yesterday so I would not be stopped out of this stock. I am glad I did. Going forward, when the judge announces his decision on damages, I am of the opinion the stock should see a nice bounce. I am still long VRNG.
    Nov 6, 2012. 04:11 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: Take A Deep Breath, The Roller Coaster Continues  [View instapost]
    Here is a couple of updates this morning on twitter from Neil@quantrec:

    $VRNG Breaking News - Question of Jury
    Jury brought back a question at 10:10 which the court addressed. "Is there a date to use when considering 3rd party infringement (i.e. non-Google defendants)?. Judges response "Date of infringement is relevant only if you are calculating damages." The judge referred them to the record, where they can see that they would all be at the same date. What can be inferred by this question is that the jury did not understand how far back they can go to calculate damages with the non-Google defendants. This may be very good news for Vringo.

    $VRNG Edvacourt Update On Lunch Break $GOOG
    "The jury is having a working lunch. The attorneys are out of the courtroom. They were informed that they would be notified if there is an update.

    I might add that the courtroom optics showed the Google attorneys a bit more unsettled than I had seen them thus far. Gone was the joking around and goofy banter. The Vringo attorneys by contrast have always appeared to comport themselves in a more serious fashion. Even with the last question from the jury that seems favorable to them, they maintain their composure.

    I do not want to overstate this for Vringo, but it does seem that the judge took great pains to not overtly draw a connection between the jury's question and damages, although one would wonder what other connection could be drawn from his response.

    It seems if one were on the Google team and had been ordered not to engage in a settlement up until this point, now might be a time to reconsider. I'm guessing the jury (given lunch) will not come back with any updates, questions, etc. until 2:00pm at earliest. That would clearly give the sides enough time to have a substantive conversation. It is beginning to look like this could well be wrapped up today and therefore there is a clear and present urgency."
    Nov 5, 2012. 01:02 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: Take A Deep Breath, The Roller Coaster Continues  [View instapost]
    Where on twitter did you see this? I can't seem to find any info.
    Nov 2, 2012. 06:09 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Potential Long-Term Value Of Vringo Is $100 A Share  [View article]
    Mr. Giles - It is real simple. In order to get an injunction, the plaintiff or defendant has to ask for it and prove it is needed. Your thinking is completely flawed in regard to an injunction. If Vringo wants future damages, why on earth would they want the judge to grant an injunction? They can not have both. Sure injunctive relief could be applied in this case, however, the plaintiff did not plead it and therefore it is not possible at this late stage of the trial to amend the pleadings. Basic civil procedure.
    Nov 1, 2012. 02:33 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Potential Long-Term Value Of Vringo Is $100 A Share  [View article]
    Absolutely no injunction in this trial will be issued. In order to grant injunctive relief, you have to plead it. Vringo did not ask for any injunctive relief in their original pleadings. What they did ask for is past and future damages. Now if they plead injunctive relief and were granted it, they would be shooting themselves in the foot as they would not be able to assert future damages. It is clear by their original complaint what their game plan is: to be compensated for past and future damages on their patents that they believe Google has infringed on. A very good legal strategy in my opinion. The judge does not grant plaintiffs that which they do not seek. Injunctive relief is not part of this trial.
    Oct 30, 2012. 02:18 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: Down To Two Witnesses  [View instapost]
    The reason Vringo did not ask the court for injunctive relief is first off, they are not currently using the patents. Secondly, they want Google to keep on using their patent so they can continue to earn royalties going forward. Pretty cut and dry. Willful infringement is very hard to prove. Why waste time and resources on a claim that has very little chance of succeeding. Also, doing so could possibly alienate the jury. Their simple strategy of claiming past and future royalties is in my opinion the best approach.
    Oct 29, 2012. 04:15 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: Down To Two Witnesses  [View instapost]
    This case is not about right and wrong. Vringo claims their patents were infringed. Google claims there is prior art so the patents in questions are not valid. What it boils down to is this: Whatever side has more credibility with the jury will prevail. Most civil cases settle prior to trial. However, when a trial does take place, the side that presents its case in the most credible manner to the jury wins. So far Vringo has done the best job of presenting their facts in a most believable manner. Barring any last minute suprise, Vringo should prevail. The only unkown is the damage award. Let's hope it is high enough to run the stock up at least to $10 or so. I am long and have limit orders already placed to sell at $6.50 up to $10.
    Oct 28, 2012. 02:41 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: Trial Update For 10/15/2012  [View instapost]
    As I have been following the updates on VRNG, I have come to realize that Steve's articles were very informative and especially in regard to the legal rulings. Having a back round in civil litigation myself, I respect his thoughts. Now that I found out he is a practicing attorney, it all makes sense as to his understanding of the legal proceedings. Keep up the good work Steve, we all appreciate your efforts.
    Oct 16, 2012. 02:24 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment