Seeking Alpha

ala900

ala900
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View ala900's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Vringo: Where's The Money? [View article]
    Google is desperate, no doubt
    Jun 5, 2013. 12:19 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Can Judge Jackson Impose An Injunction Against Google's Unconfirmed Workaround? [View article]
    http://seekingalpha.co...

    This case is nearing the end as Vringo (VRNG) won a unanimous jury verdict last November in a federal district court. At issue is Google's reputation and potentially up to $1.4 billion in royalties and damages. For its part, Google has been on the losing side of several key post trial motions and their latest response, to a very critical plaintiff royalty motion, has relayed a sense of utter desperation. The response was loaded with caustic idioms and references to a design around ruse, that coincidentally failed to get any traction from a previous JMOL. One could almost hear the clunk of the kitchen sink being thrown into the decision process, when statements concerning USPTO final actions were read into the response. Who was Google trying to confuse? The USPTO process allows the patent holder to retain all commensurate rights while the patent certificate stays in force, and these patents are not going anywhere for the next 5 years. Does Google really believe Judge Jackson will grant a 5-year stay? That would make sense in North Korea where Jackson could be an employee of the executive and the judicial branches, possibly an idea shared by Kim Jun-un and Eric Schmidt. Thankfully, this is the USA and our system of government affords proper penalties for companies that recklessly desire to steer into judicial brick walls. Vringo stands to win big as reputation is everything to Google, even at the cost of a black eye or a billion dollar royalty.
    May 17, 2013. 11:00 AM | 8 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • How Will Judge Jackson Handle Google's Confirmed Workaround?‎ [View article]
    Once the judge gives Vringo a running royalty, they are entitled to payment. Legally, this is an injunction against use of their patents absent royalty payments. Then GOOG decides not to pay because they believe they are no longer infringing, that is, using VRNG's patents. There are BIG risks to GOOG proceeding this way. Contempt of Court is a big deal, and the remedies can be harsh.
    May 15, 2013. 01:29 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo: '420 Patent Re-Examination And Confusion [View article]
    from a very reliable source elsewhere:

    After reading 2 days full of BS about the patent reexamination I will explain the truth:

    The patent reexamination does not impact the jury verdict.
    The patent reexamination does not impact royalties.
    It is still in a very early process and needs to go through several layers of appeals within the USPTO, which then can be further appealed to the Supreme Court, and further can be delayed by a civil case against the director of the USPTO.
    We are talking a whole lot of time and the patents will likely expire in 2016 before the patents are fully invalidated and appeals exhausted. Google will be required to pay any royalties up until the final invalidation date that HJJ and the CAFC deem proper. Up until this time the patents are considered valid and enforceable. The only short term negative that is a possibility is a stay of the MSFT case pending the reexamination. I would give this a highly unlikely chance of happening, especially with settlement discussions being publicly known.
    May 5, 2013. 02:13 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo: '420 Patent Re-Examination And Confusion [View article]
    Alan you are right

    it's actually from another guy who I consider highly reliable
    May 5, 2013. 02:11 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo: '420 Patent Re-Examination And Confusion [View article]
    Alan what do you mean ?
    May 4, 2013. 03:53 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo: '420 Patent Re-Examination And Confusion [View article]
    In a court proceeding, a patent is not found “valid.” A
    judgment in favor of a patent holder in the face of an
    invalidity defense or counterclaim merely means that the
    patent challenger has failed to carry its burden of establishing
    invalidity by clear and convincing evidence in that
    particular case—premised on the evidence presented
    there. See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1429 n.3
    (Fed. Cir. 1988). If the PTO later considers the validity of
    that same patent, it does so based on the evidence before
    it and under the lesser burden of proof that applies in
    reexamination proceedings. As the majority notes, Congress
    granted the PTO the right to act within the realm of
    its authority. In re Baxter, Int’l Inc. 678 F.3d at 1365.


    These conclusions do not mean, however, that, when
    the PTO does act in the context of a reexamination proceeding,
    its conclusions can alter the binding effect of a
    prior judgment in a judicial proceeding. They cannot, and
    the PTO concedes as much in its response to the petition
    for rehearing en banc when it states that “f a federal
    court awards relief to a patent holder against an infringer,
    a subsequent reexamination decision that the
    patent is invalid does not disturb the judgment of the
    court or alter its binding effect on the parties.”

    PTO Response at 14. This concession is consistent with, and
    dictated by, well-established principles of res judicata.
    See San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 545 U.S.
    323, 336 n.16 (2005) (“Under res judicata, a final judgment
    on the merits of an action precludes the parties or
    their privies from relitigating issues that were or could
    have been raised in that action.”); see also Reed v. Allen,
    286 U.S. 191, 198-99 (1932)
    May 4, 2013. 01:47 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo: '420 Patent Re-Examination And Confusion [View article]
    yes Kevin

    USPTO is non-factor
    May 4, 2013. 09:14 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: Showdown Or Workaround [View article]
    Pop this morning on news in the VHC litigation that Apple's work around was bogus
    Apr 26, 2013. 12:54 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: Showdown Or Workaround [View article]
    VRNG royalties
    http://bit.ly/11nUcPE
    Apr 25, 2013. 04:03 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: Showdown Or Workaround [View article]
    Re workaround:

    Even if there were a workaround---which many people feel doesn’t exist---the workaround actually has to be IMPLEMENTED in order for the infringement to be cancelled. The workaround can’t merely be something shown to apply in the abstract or in a test of some kind. So, the future actual implementation of a workaround may well be the biggest barrier for Google in our situation, even if able to be accomplished in theory.

    Of course what’s pretty suspicious about Google’s newly-claimed workaround, though, (in addition to the points people have already made on this board) is that the workaround is now brought up at the very time when the judge might be making a decision regarding royalty rates. The cases indicate that the existence of a workaround decreases the future royalty rates an infringer has to pay, substantially, if not entirely. So Google, which seems to say whatever needs to be said in order to achieve its business purposes, suddenly claims, voila! it has a workaround.

    Gee, do you think that this may be just another example of what Judge Scola and others claim is Big Bad Google’s abuse of the legal system by doing and saying whatever it feels is necessary to delay and disrupt the legal process?

    Not only is Google's claimed (non-implemented) workaround inappropriate for the issue presently facing JJ, but it really does seem to be a crass, clumsy, arrogant attempt to influence an upcoming critical royalty rate decision by JJ.
    Apr 23, 2013. 09:49 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: Showdown Or Workaround [View article]
    Patent Plays shame on you
    Apr 22, 2013. 10:05 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: Showdown Or Workaround [View article]
    GOOG can make changes to the look, feel, expand to different platforms such as mobile vs. laptop etc. However, what Vringo's patented art covers goes at the very heart of how Google filters and presents pertinent information to the user. This is the "core" code and its use and implementation impact was clearly seen by the market as a jump in revenue and increased market share going back to 2004 when it started.

    Lawyers are gray area masters, if there is 1% potential truth in an argument they will use it to their advantage. Google's workaround could be nothing more than a very hypothetical, possible workaround and the code just a few lines written toward that workaround goal.
    Apr 21, 2013. 02:25 PM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Google Claims To Have Defeated Vringo Search Patents [View article]
    yes, it doesn't mean anything beyond that
    Apr 20, 2013. 12:34 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Google Claims To Have Defeated Vringo Search Patents [View article]
    VRNG must reply by Monday 4/22
    Apr 17, 2013. 10:51 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
72 Comments
112 Likes