Google, Activision Blizzard And Groupon Await Justice [View article]
Wow. That is the first I have heard of those numbers. Would you mind providing a link(s) to any of these reports?
Do we know for sure that "online gaming = MMORPG"? Or is it possible that this $65B number includes revenues categorized as "online gaming" but are not necessarily MMORPG related? For example, there are many single-player games that can be played online, so I would imagine these do not utilize MMORPG technology.
If Reuters/Gartner intend to equate online gaming strictly w/MMORPG, then this is certainly terrific news for WDDD.
Google, Activision Blizzard And Groupon Await Justice [View article]
@PP,
(1) Where are you getting the $65B from? ATVI is ~$4B out of a global market of $12B. Are you now including a much broader definition of what MMORPG means to capture other companies in other industries who may not be using the patents for gaming but may be applying the patents nonetheless, albeit for other non-gaming endeavours?
(2) Keep in mind that WDDD's patents are only registered domestically, so like VRNG-GOOG, only US revenues are on the table (i.e. only a slice of the overall MMORPG market can be potentially pursued).
Motion 938. Googles Hail Mary. What To Expect Next. [View instapost]
@clider,
Thanks for taking time to write this. In your closing sentence you refer to a precedent for the reversal of a hastily issued laches order. Would you mind providing the name of this precedent case law? I have tried to find such precedent for a while now but have been unable to, so I would very much be interested in researching the case you found. Hopefully, the circumstances surrounding it are similar enough to what transpired w/VRNG that it can truly be a bona fide precedent that VRNG can build its appeal around.
Also, no biggie on this one as it is simply a minor semantic technicality: Docket # 938 is not a motion for which HJJ will be issuing any "grant vs deny" order. It is simply the opposition brief to Docket # 822, which IS a motion (specifically, VRNG's motion requesting post-judgment royalties). There will be no ruling from HJJ on 938 specifically; rather, once VRNG files their reply brief, HJJ will simply rule on 822.
How Long Until Vringo's Verdict Against Google Pays Off? [View article]
@adam,
Appreciate your continued ability to provide an objective perspective on what has and continues to transpires here.
Based on your experience as well as understanding of judicial procedure, would you be able to comment as to what exactly HJJ's options are with regard to responding to GOOG's workaround claims?
As a layman, it intuitively seems to me that HJJ's court is no longer the proper venue for this issue to be hashed out. HJJ's charge is to issue his final rulings to "wrap up" the case as it was presented during trial and to the jury. As such, any subsequent events are not and should not be incorporated into HJJ's thought process as it would be tantamount to introducing new evidence and re-litigating the case post-trial. It seems to me that HJJ's only option should be to simply rule on a future RR/base, rule on 792 and 809, and close this case out -- and GOOG's avenue to pursue this workaround issue would be to file a new suit separate from this case.
Google Cannot Penetrate Vringo's 7th Amendment Armor [View article]
1000 lashes by 1000 leeches jumping off of cabinet door latches to the next person who mis-spells laches!!! So proclaims Sam I am who does not want green eggs and ham, but only green paper with pics of dead presidents on them... ...sorry, couldn't resist... :-)
Google Cannot Penetrate Vringo's 7th Amendment Armor [View article]
I am not an expert on the quirks of implementing new legislation, but even if Congress were to pass any such legislation, I would imagine that legislation of this nature would contain some variation of a grandfather-type clause that would make it applicable only to newly filed patent infringement suits, and would NOT be applicable to suits already in process. Otherwise, it would seem grossly unfair to change the rules in the middle of a trial. I would imagine there would be some cutoff point (i.e. any new leglislation would impact either newly files suits only or perhaps also those suits who have yet to have their Markman hearings). In any event, I can't imagine any new legislation, even if passed tomorrow, would impact VRNG in the current GOOG case.
Google Claims To Have Defeated Vringo Search Patents [View article]
I concur with the gist of what Kevin is saying here.
In particular, wasn't one of GOOG's own experts one of the ones who also ended up testifying/acknowledging that GOOG had not been able to develop a comparable workaround to the 420/664?
To me, this is key for 2 reasons:
(1) If there was (or is currently, as GOOG now claims) a workaround, then it won't be COMPARABLE, and it just stretches the boundaries of not just common sense -- but fundamental business sense, especially considering that GOOG, as a public company, owes a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders -- that GOOG would rollout new algos that generated revenues that resulted in revenues that decreased by a factor that significantly exceeded the cost had they simply paid the royalties or settled.
(2) If GOOG was unsuccessful in developing a comparable workaround at the time of the trial 6 months ago, if they now feel they have a workaround that IS comparable, then any program manager knows that a change of this magnitude -- especially one that has the revenue impact this would have -- is made very cautiously and at best would still take a MINIMUM of 12-24 months to go thru the requisite testing/rework cycle, then controlled rollout of a pilot program somewhere, back again, etc, etc, etc. prior to full-blown launch. Bottom line: Barring the ability to bend time, it just seems incredibly remote that any new COMPARABLE workaround is on the cusp of being rolled out.
Shifting gears here... ...Any attorneys able to comment on the following:
Isn't GOOG's claim of a workaround just a red herring for JJ? IANAL, but my initial reaction to today's filings is that the only issue JJ needs to legitimately consider from GOOG is the request to depose Becker.
IMO (again, not a lawyer here), even if GOOG has a workaround, it is irrelevant to the current case. The current case relates to GOOG's past behavior and current behavior at the time of the jury verdict, as well as GOOG's continuing use of 420/664 during post-judgment periods which continue to this day and up until GOOG officially claims to launch a non-infringing version of AdWords.
As such, wouldn't the scope of what JJ needs to rule on (as well as the timing in which he rules -- i.e. no extension necessary) be unchanged by any workaround? If JJ imposes a RR of 5% of 20.9% (hypothetically), then GOOG is on the hook for it pending standard appeal protocol.
If GOOG now claims they are no longer infringing, wouldn't they need to wait until they ACTUALLY LAUNCH this new AdWords program and then file a new request with the Court to have a hearing where they would have to prove they are no longer infringing, and if the Court agrees, then the Court would grant a relief from further royalty payments?
Can Vringo Win 7% Royalties From Google? [View article]
Thanks Kevin,
I am aware of Becker's post-trial declarations. I guess maybe I should have worded my question a bit more clearly:
Would post-trial declarations such as this be considered as part of the official record of "evidence/testimony proferred during trial"?
Clearly, this declaration dated 12/18/12 was made by Becker at VRNG's behest in order to support 822. And as much as I believe that it is a strong argument in and of itself, it would be exponentially stronger if there was some reference to a post-judgment RR of 5% as part of the actual trial testimony that was proferred up in front of the jury (heck, it doesn't even need to be in front of the jury, so long as it was proffered up DURING the trial -- and not raised for the first time AFTER the trial).
The reason I say this is that the only thing we know for certain is that JJ stated at the conclusion of the trial that the Court would most likely use the damages theory reflected in the evidence/testimony proffered up DURING the trial.
Can Vringo Win 7% Royalties From Google? [View article]
@PatentPlays,
Thanks for that citation of the trial notes. Would you be able to provide more clarity as to this citation?
Was this 5% testimony by Becker made in the presence of the jury? And what was the context of this testimony that he was attributing 3-5% as being applicable?
Also, is this citation available in a motion docket that you can specify? Or is it only available to see in the actual transcripts of the case? If so, would you have a link to it?
This could be critical info if indeed 5% was part of the official court records as being part of the "evidence/testimony proffered during trial" which JJ clearly stated that the Court would likely adhere to in developing its rulings.
Vringo: How Much Is A Settlement With Microsoft? [View article]
I believe that Maxim's $71M estimate was stated to be a NET settlement amount. Reverse engineer this amount to adjust for the legal contingency and taxes (which they disclosed they estimated at 20% and 35%, respectively), and you actually get a gross settlement amount of $136.5M.
Certainly not as much as many investors may think VRNG should/could get, but certainly not outside the realm of reality -- and, in the world of commercial litigation involving small cap companies, it is indeed very much an amount that Mgmt would conceivably suspend litigation for 60 days for.
Stocks With Upcoming Legal Catalysts [View article]
First things first. DSS can't be played to exploit the upcoming Markman or any other litigation-related catalyst against these big names without a completed merger w/Lexington, the actual patent owner named as plaintiff in the suits...
Google, Activision Blizzard And Groupon Await Justice [View article]
Do we know for sure that "online gaming = MMORPG"? Or is it possible that this $65B number includes revenues categorized as "online gaming" but are not necessarily MMORPG related? For example, there are many single-player games that can be played online, so I would imagine these do not utilize MMORPG technology.
If Reuters/Gartner intend to equate online gaming strictly w/MMORPG, then this is certainly terrific news for WDDD.
Thanks...
Google, Activision Blizzard And Groupon Await Justice [View article]
(1)
Where are you getting the $65B from? ATVI is ~$4B out of a global market of $12B. Are you now including a much broader definition of what MMORPG means to capture other companies in other industries who may not be using the patents for gaming but may be applying the patents nonetheless, albeit for other non-gaming endeavours?
(2)
Keep in mind that WDDD's patents are only registered domestically, so like VRNG-GOOG, only US revenues are on the table (i.e. only a slice of the overall MMORPG market can be potentially pursued).
Motion 938. Googles Hail Mary. What To Expect Next. [View instapost]
Thanks for taking time to write this. In your closing sentence you refer to a precedent for the reversal of a hastily issued laches order. Would you mind providing the name of this precedent case law? I have tried to find such precedent for a while now but have been unable to, so I would very much be interested in researching the case you found. Hopefully, the circumstances surrounding it are similar enough to what transpired w/VRNG that it can truly be a bona fide precedent that VRNG can build its appeal around.
Also, no biggie on this one as it is simply a minor semantic technicality: Docket # 938 is not a motion for which HJJ will be issuing any "grant vs deny" order. It is simply the opposition brief to Docket # 822, which IS a motion (specifically, VRNG's motion requesting post-judgment royalties). There will be no ruling from HJJ on 938 specifically; rather, once VRNG files their reply brief, HJJ will simply rule on 822.
Thanks again...
How Long Until Vringo's Verdict Against Google Pays Off? [View article]
Appreciate your continued ability to provide an objective perspective on what has and continues to transpires here.
Based on your experience as well as understanding of judicial procedure, would you be able to comment as to what exactly HJJ's options are with regard to responding to GOOG's workaround claims?
As a layman, it intuitively seems to me that HJJ's court is no longer the proper venue for this issue to be hashed out. HJJ's charge is to issue his final rulings to "wrap up" the case as it was presented during trial and to the jury. As such, any subsequent events are not and should not be incorporated into HJJ's thought process as it would be tantamount to introducing new evidence and re-litigating the case post-trial. It seems to me that HJJ's only option should be to simply rule on a future RR/base, rule on 792 and 809, and close this case out -- and GOOG's avenue to pursue this workaround issue would be to file a new suit separate from this case.
Your thoughts?
How Long Until Vringo's Verdict Against Google Pays Off? [View article]
Google Cannot Penetrate Vringo's 7th Amendment Armor [View article]
Google Cannot Penetrate Vringo's 7th Amendment Armor [View article]
Google Changing Terms On AdSense [View instapost]
Not a techie here, but from my understanding, AdWords (which is what is being litigated between VRNG and GOOG) and AdSense are two different products.
Your blog title refers to AdWords but the letter from GOOG is discussing changes to AdSense.
Am I mistaken in my understanding of AdWords vis-a-vis AdSense?
If not, then perhapes this bears no relationship to anything going on with the case?
TIA.
Google Claims To Have Defeated Vringo Search Patents [View article]
In particular, wasn't one of GOOG's own experts one of the ones who also ended up testifying/acknowledging that GOOG had not been able to develop a comparable workaround to the 420/664?
To me, this is key for 2 reasons:
(1)
If there was (or is currently, as GOOG now claims) a workaround, then it won't be COMPARABLE, and it just stretches the boundaries of not just common sense -- but fundamental business sense, especially considering that GOOG, as a public company, owes a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders -- that GOOG would rollout new algos that generated revenues that resulted in revenues that decreased by a factor that significantly exceeded the cost had they simply paid the royalties or settled.
(2)
If GOOG was unsuccessful in developing a comparable workaround at the time of the trial 6 months ago, if they now feel they have a workaround that IS comparable, then any program manager knows that a change of this magnitude -- especially one that has the revenue impact this would have -- is made very cautiously and at best would still take a MINIMUM of 12-24 months to go thru the requisite testing/rework cycle, then controlled rollout of a pilot program somewhere, back again, etc, etc, etc. prior to full-blown launch. Bottom line: Barring the ability to bend time, it just seems incredibly remote that any new COMPARABLE workaround is on the cusp of being rolled out.
Shifting gears here... ...Any attorneys able to comment on the following:
Isn't GOOG's claim of a workaround just a red herring for JJ? IANAL, but my initial reaction to today's filings is that the only issue JJ needs to legitimately consider from GOOG is the request to depose Becker.
IMO (again, not a lawyer here), even if GOOG has a workaround, it is irrelevant to the current case. The current case relates to GOOG's past behavior and current behavior at the time of the jury verdict, as well as GOOG's continuing use of 420/664 during post-judgment periods which continue to this day and up until GOOG officially claims to launch a non-infringing version of AdWords.
As such, wouldn't the scope of what JJ needs to rule on (as well as the timing in which he rules -- i.e. no extension necessary) be unchanged by any workaround? If JJ imposes a RR of 5% of 20.9% (hypothetically), then GOOG is on the hook for it pending standard appeal protocol.
If GOOG now claims they are no longer infringing, wouldn't they need to wait until they ACTUALLY LAUNCH this new AdWords program and then file a new request with the Court to have a hearing where they would have to prove they are no longer infringing, and if the Court agrees, then the Court would grant a relief from further royalty payments?
Or does it not work this way?
Can Vringo Win 7% Royalties From Google? [View article]
Can Vringo Win 7% Royalties From Google? [View article]
Can Vringo Win 7% Royalties From Google? [View article]
I am aware of Becker's post-trial declarations. I guess maybe I should have worded my question a bit more clearly:
Would post-trial declarations such as this be considered as part of the official record of "evidence/testimony proferred during trial"?
Clearly, this declaration dated 12/18/12 was made by Becker at VRNG's behest in order to support 822. And as much as I believe that it is a strong argument in and of itself, it would be exponentially stronger if there was some reference to a post-judgment RR of 5% as part of the actual trial testimony that was proferred up in front of the jury (heck, it doesn't even need to be in front of the jury, so long as it was proffered up DURING the trial -- and not raised for the first time AFTER the trial).
The reason I say this is that the only thing we know for certain is that JJ stated at the conclusion of the trial that the Court would most likely use the damages theory reflected in the evidence/testimony proffered up DURING the trial.
Thoughts, anyone?
Can Vringo Win 7% Royalties From Google? [View article]
Thanks for that citation of the trial notes. Would you be able to provide more clarity as to this citation?
Was this 5% testimony by Becker made in the presence of the jury? And what was the context of this testimony that he was attributing 3-5% as being applicable?
Also, is this citation available in a motion docket that you can specify? Or is it only available to see in the actual transcripts of the case? If so, would you have a link to it?
This could be critical info if indeed 5% was part of the official court records as being part of the "evidence/testimony proffered during trial" which JJ clearly stated that the Court would likely adhere to in developing its rulings.
TIA
Vringo: How Much Is A Settlement With Microsoft? [View article]
Certainly not as much as many investors may think VRNG should/could get, but certainly not outside the realm of reality -- and, in the world of commercial litigation involving small cap companies, it is indeed very much an amount that Mgmt would conceivably suspend litigation for 60 days for.
Stocks With Upcoming Legal Catalysts [View article]