You can't trust these guys 'reporting' from court. Sure, they may be there and have provided some good truthful updates. But you gotta realize that they could do this to gain trust so that their misleading info at a later date would be taken with more credibility. Not saying that's the case, but, assume the worst, hope for the best, and trust no-one because you don't know their real motives.
Perhaps, Edvacourt did not report on the Judges remark, the judges remark may have been taken out of context in a reply to a motion, it is not reported that, the judge has ruled any damage claims prior to the date in his remark are not relevant. This remark was not made with the jury present - it is likely that the judge will let the jury decide - The judge decides on matters of court procedure and admissability of evidence.
MikeHD says he is just an observer without legal knowledge, but has given some good info/updates. Want to be careful not to dismiss what he says just because it isn't what we want to hear. But, also must realize that legal maneuvers are complicated and easily misunderstood by the common observer (which unfortunately includes the jury here).
edvacourt seems to have a better grasp of legal 'speak' and issues and has given thorough reports. He did not make any mention of the issue of date of notification that Mike referred to, but focused his AM update on the testimony of Carbonelle (who I thought wasn't slated to talk until after lunch, but maybe got there earlier than expected or I misunderstood the scheduling...?).
I don't really know what to think. It's possible that both are there, but have different understandings of what is important and how it is affecting the jury.
The thought I keep coming back to is that both seem to indicate that google is contesting the date of alleged infringement, not that it occurred. That sounds like what the jury might take away too, so a verdict in favor of VRNG still seems likely, and as it has been, the variable is how much $$ are they entitled to?
Just putting my thoughts as I try to unravel them down in case it helps or prompts others' thoughts that may be helpful to all.
The difference appears to be that mikehd25 attempted to interpret the impact of a defense and may have unintentionally overstated or it was unintentionally over-interpreted by the shorts and fragile longs. Stock is acting twitchy and needs some calming words to make people feel better....;)
Sentiment: Strong Buy