Thu, Aug 21, 2014, 6:36 PM EDT - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Google Inc. Message Board

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the posts
  • faith_destiny@sbcglobal.net faith_destiny Oct 24, 2012 10:35 AM Flag

    The Three Google Billionaires Stooges Schmidt Page & Brin are Obama Biggest Supporters for Political Faver

    PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSED CURATIVE INSTRUCTIONS
    1. Instruction Regarding The Disney-Google Agreement
    Members of the jury, yesterday you heard counsel for Defendants ask Dr. Becker a
    number of questions during cross-examination regarding a patent license agreement between
    Disney and Google. Defendants were trying to establish that the technology of the DisneyGoogle Agreement is comparable to the technology of the patents-in-suit that I/P Engine is
    asserting against Google and the other defendants. The Court has ruled that the technology of
    the Disney-Google Agreement is not comparable to the technology of the patents-in-suit. As a
    result, the Court instructed you to disregard all testimony regarding the Disney-Google
    Agreement. You may not consider that agreement, or the amount of that agreement, for any
    purpose, including trying to determine what the appropriate royalty should be in this case.
    I want to emphasize that my instruction to you on this matter is in no way a reflection that
    Dr. Becker did anything improper. During his direct examination, Dr. Becker testified that he
    was not relying on the Disney-Google agreement because there is no evidence that the Disney
    technology is relevant to any issue in this case the questions of Defense counsel regarding the
    Case 2:11-cv-00512-RAJ-TEM Document 740-1 Filed 10/24/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID# 160891
    Disney-Google agreement were improper. The Court has therefore ruled that any evidence
    regarding the Disney technology is improper and irrelevant.
    2. Instruction Regarding Discovery of Google’s Financial Information
    You also heard counsel for Defendants ask Dr. Becker questions regarding whether he
    had asked counsel for I/P Engine for further documents or information to support his opinions
    regarding his apportionment, or whether there was a final version of PX 64, the Revenue Force
    document. After reviewing the record on this matter, the Court has found that counsel for I/P
    Engine had requested those documents and information from Google, but that Google did not
    produce to I/P Engine a final version of the Revenue Force document, PX 64, or any documents
    providing the numerical support for the slides on page 38 of that document. I instruct you that
    you may conclude, based upon the cross-examination questions asked of Dr. Becker by
    Defendants’ counsel, that Google had additional documents and information that, had they been
    produced, would have provided further support to Dr. Becker’s opinions regarding his
    apportionment.
    Sentiment: Buy
    .2 users liked this posts 0 users disliked this posts ReplyIgnore User | Report Abuse ..View Replies
    Re: Re: New PACER Doc - Interpretation anyone?
    By harpolerichard . 26 seconds ago . Permalink
    .OK. So the way I read this: The Judge rules that the Disney-Google technology agreement DO...

    OK. So the way I read this:
    The Judge rules that the Disney-Google technology agreement DOES NOT-IS NOT the same as the tech infringement Google is being sued for. Judge instructs Jury to disregard Becker testimony
    specific to this agreenet as it is not comparable specific to tech and settlement amount...this is nothing but a BIG POSITIVE for Vringo.

    Google was trying to 1. Say it was the same tech and 2. The damages should be similar if applicable....read between the lines...Goolgle is saying we are guilty but this is what we would like to pay.
    .0 users liked this posts 0 users disliked this posts ReplyIgnore User | Report Abuse ..Re: New PACER Doc - Interpretation anyone?
    By marinedelray . 7 minutes ago . Permalink
    .Yesterday the judge struck the cross examination of VRNG's expert. Striking testimony ...

    Yesterday the judge struck the cross examination of VRNG's expert. Striking testimony after it has already happened is not ideal. He really shouldn't have allowed it in the 1st place. So now the judge has to give a curative instruction, something to the effect of "you will disredard..." All still an indication that rulings went in VRNG's favor yesterday.
    .0 users liked this posts 0 users disliked this posts ReplyIgnore User | Report Abuse ..Re: New PACER Doc - Interpretation anyone?
    By nick.henny . 7 minutes ago . Permalink
    .basically the judge threw out this testimony...which is good for VRINGO because GOOG was t...

    basically the judge threw out this testimony...which is good for VRINGO because GOOG was trying to use this to limit the damages for their infringement.
    Sentiment: Strong Buy
    .0 users liked this posts 0 users disliked this posts ReplyIgnore User | Report Abuse ..Re: New PACER Doc - Interpretation anyone?
    By bbondslf25 . 1 minute 47 seconds ago . Permalink
    .This is re-confirmation of yesterdays news... becker's cross examination was striked.....

    This is re-confirmation of yesterdays news... becker's cross examination was striked... so judge is telling jury to disregard it...( curative)

 
GOOG
583.37-1.12(-0.19%)Aug 21 4:00 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.