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

Vringo, Inc. Message Board

  • bashers_are_liars bashers_are_liars Aug 18, 2013 11:02 PM Flag

    Excellent Post From IHUB MB By ipittydafoo Part #1

    No garbage posters allowed on IHUB, quality like this from "ipitydafoo".

    "so..let me get this straight

    You suggest or imply that their claim, that they have a workaround that changes the FUNDAMENTAL underpinning (the logic, not code) in their business 6 months after a trial loss has taken place, I disagree.

    Let's parse this out logically.

    1. I have worked in technology. Anyone who says you can change even the most basic of programs on an enterprise level, with no reduction in performance in six months is a lunatic. In that six months, you need to code, test, bug fix, beta test, bug fix, then deploy live in selective sites, wait and see if you find bugs, fix, test again, then go live to all sites. That is a basic deployment.

    2. This is not a ‘basic’ change, this is a FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE.

    3. Now that the basic tech process is out of the way let’s look at strategy. Using this defense is typical. It is used in pretty much every patent dispute, right out of the playbook.

    4. Others claim, well its perjury if they lied. Well if they lied AND if they have NOTHING its perjury, not if what they have doesn’t actually work as a workaround, so therefore there is no risk in claiming such a workaround for leverage. If it comes to the point where you have to show your cards, you make a small logic change and say “oops we thought it worked, I guess we were wrong, oh well”. But no perjury.

    5. If they indeed had a working, valid work around, why were they continuing through the process with the USPTO? 420 had no bearing then right?

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • For those that haven't seen this post. And be sure to read #2 there's #1 and #2 couldn't get it all on one page.

    • ipittydafoo's from IHUB Post is still too Excellent to be buried.

    • There were two posters on here that have claimed all along that there isn't a work-around, because of exactly what the process is that is mentioned here. Can't remember who they were, but when i read their reasons it sounded like this guy/gal. I agree, you can't develop and role something out that quick. I know at a company I worked for changed just our inventory ssytem it took almost a year +++ and that was with many 'bugs'

    • I could only get half of the post from IHUB by .....ipitydafoo on one page, so I put the first half on #1 page and the other half on #2 sure to read #2 also......for the full affect.

      ipitydafoo Sure does prove he is

      Real glad he is on our side, what confidence I already had has been multiplied now countless times after reading his work. However long it takes......I can easily wait now.

      Patience is going to pay big here.

    • That's the way I have always seen it. Don't think it is worth the gamble to GOOG as well... after all it is only a couple of years. Didn't know it was standard procedure to claim such a thing in patent litigation, but makes sense...

    • Part #2

      6. Let’s look at the timing of the workaround claim and its purpose. They claimed it after the jury ruled. 664 was going their way. If 420 was invalidated then all of this trial is moot correct? What did google want at that time, what was in the brief? A request for additional time correct? A delay right? Again, ‘ use logic folks, they were delaying for the USPTO, we all knew it, there was anger and vitriol all over the boards how JJ was giving them all the delays they wanted etc. Why delay if you have a work around? And if it indeed it was so novel, well get an independent party to verify it, and show the documentation to the courts and vrng, case closed right?

      7. Please look at rimm/ntp as a case study but there are many others, again typical defense strategy.

      8. Where is the 8k explaining this material change to their business, and if they felt that is not necessary, well where is the patent application? Wouldn’t that in itself, if provided to the courts show a real workaround? At least that they have something they truly believe works? I would at least expect that patent application as a fundamental part of the court record here if they are stating it no longer infringes. Clearly something so novel would be patented.

      Let’s use our brains here folks. Again, put on negotiation hats. Negotiations are about leverage, you do what you have to when you have no leverage in your position and need it to minimize costs/damages.

      Google will settle very soon, watch and learn

0.3275-0.0146(-4.27%)Nov 25 4:00 PMEST