Fri, Jul 25, 2014, 8:33 AM EDT - U.S. Markets open in 57 mins.

Recent

% | $
Click the to save as a favorite.

Augme Technologies, Inc. Message Board

  • boblovesmodavox boblovesmodavox Aug 21, 2009 9:19 PM Flag

    Great Post From Ivillage Board

    By justiceand truth

    Ongoing Modavox v. Tacoda case
    I was looking at PACER over the last few days and found something worth mentioning. Although I was aware that Yahoo has filed suit against AOL for patent infringement on a handful of their patents, I wasn't aware of something noteworthy.

    If you review the filings, you will see that the same counsel representing AOL in the Modavox v. AOL case, Paul Gupta of Orrick is also representing AOL in Yahoo v. AOL. As stated previously, Mr. Gupta is a well respected patent litigator who carries a very full caseload. Good chance that caseload is increasing based on the following article which indicates his firm is laying off another 300 lawyers. http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2009/03/02/daily46.html One would expect counsel of his caliber to approach the majority of these patent infringement cases in a similar manner. However, in the case of Modavox v. Tacoda, he handled it very differently than he did in the recent Yahoo case.

    If you review the filings on the Yahoo suit, you will see he immediately petitioned the USPTO requesting a re-examination of the patents citing that they never should have been issued, this process in itself can take years. He also immediately went to the court and asked for declaratory relief as noted in the following link. http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSTRE53D76R20090414. In stark contrast, he did none of the above in the Modavox v. Tacoda case.

    Why did he react so differently to these two similar patent suits? My hunch remains that Mr. Gupta erroneously underestimated the strength of his opponent, failing to size them up properly. Something I've long contended is that he probably never expected Modavox to be capable of putting forward the fight they have. He probably perceived Modavox as a readily defeatable and undercapitalized adversary lacking the wherewithal to go the distance while perceiving Yahoo as the opposite. Its fairly apparent his strategy with Modavox was never one of attempting to fight the case on the technical merits, rather he has seemingly relied on legal tactics aimed at trying to exhaust a small company's resources. This is an often effective and strategic legal strategy when you have parties with a disparate amount of resources. It's even more appropriate when its clear that your client has virtually no legal remedy and is in fact infringing on the little companies patent as is clearly the case here.

    I have and still see no reason for Tacoda and their counsel to have allowed this case to proceed to its current stage but for the reason cited above. A lawyer always has a sense of whether their client has a good case or a bad one. Little that happens in the actual courtroom should come as a surprise. Certainly a judge or jury can always throw a curve ball, but they generally have a fundamental understanding of what the most likely outcome will be based on case law and precedent. Sometimes the most prudent thing for the client is not the most desirable thing for counsel. I will stop short of suggesting that Mr. Gupta and Orrick put their financial interest ahead of their clients best interest but it would not be the first time a law firm has wrongly focused on generating firm billings rather than resolution.

    Although I traditionally root for the underdog, from a purely legal perspective I'm placing my money firmly on Modavox with respect to the ongoing patent litigation. I still would wager that Tacoda / AOL settles this case in some fashion before it ends up in front of any jury. There's a good chance that the parties still awaiting the ruling on functionality is actually precluding settlement at this time.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • I guess the only good thing for all of us it that we know what a miserable existence you still live. Creating tons of id's and harrassing people on the internet is all your life amounts to. You probably still wonder why you got booted out of our room don't you? We all used to think you were just a jerk and a bully, now we all just feel sorry for you. You wouldn't recognize the truth if you sat on it! You didn't address any of my points to you which you know where all true and you only post things that you think helps your agenda. Even Greg doesn't want to be associated with you because he also knows how nuts you are.

    • Bob did you read what you posted. You know Bubba gave us THIN because it was posted by him at dydd. His own post that you just posted said he had 80k shares personally! Your jealousy of bubba is crystal clear. You probably still wonder why all of us kicked you out of our private room!

    • That's right, nonsensical. You forgot to mention what was in the most recent 8K in regards to the value of their patents. I am sure it was just a simple oversight on your part.

      CHA CHING BABY!

      Phoenix and New York, August 31, 2009 - Modavox, Inc. (OTCBB: MDVX), Internet broadcasting pioneer and holder of several patented technologies, provides the following status update on matters related to the legal defense and business application of the company's intellectual property portfolio.

      Modavox continues to make strong progress through extensive investment and management of its market recognition and business application of its Internet technology patent portfolio.

      As previously announced earlier this year, the company increased the quality of representation and experts supporting an aggressive and comprehensive patent enforcement strategy, while reducing overall legal costs by using equity compensation in lieu of cash payment. This structure, as well as the strength of Modavox's patents, has afforded Modavox the resources to pursue a vigorous and pro-active defense of these intellectual property rights. As part of that effort, Modavox and its consultants have studied the patents and determined that infringement is widespread in the primary Internet markets of ecommerce and online advertising. With the acquisition of Augme Mobile now complete, Modavox will now begin expanding the scope of its intellectual property and IP Licensing strategy to include mobile ecommerce, mobile web advertising, and mobile device detection applications.

      Modavox continues to rigorously pursue alleged infringers of its patents. In 2007, Modavox filed a lawsuit alleging infringement against behavioral targeting ad company Tacoda, which was purchased by AOL in August 2007 for $275 million. Subsequently, Modavox filed an infringement suit against AOL, Time Warner and Platform A. The Tacoda case is currently proceeding through the Discovery phase. High on Modavox's priorities is the continued review of Tacoda's source code by its experts and counsel. On September 2, 2009, Modavox will be conferring with the court on a proposed motion relating to Tacoda's source code productions. During the week of August 17th, Tacoda's counsel commenced and completed their first round of depositions, after which the parties briefly discussed settlement. It was agreed that Modavox will provide a settlement proposal on or about September 8. Modavox will begin its depositions when its experts and counsel have substantially completed their review of Tacoda's source code and related documents.

      As previously announced, on April 28th of 2009, the Company sent a Cease and Desist letter to Yahoo!, Inc. related to their subsidiary company Blue Lithium and its Behavioral Targeting Solution. The Company has had multiple communications on this matter with Yahoo!'s outside legal counsel and has provided substantive information to Yahoo! directly via Modavox's in-house Counsel. Although both parties are bound by confidentiality commitments as to the content of discussions, Modavox perceives these communications to be constructive thus far, and will continue the dialogue with the goal of reaching a fair and amicable resolution in a timely manner.

    • Nonsensical once again.

    • Thanks for the reminder Bob you know he rec'd that xethanol at 2 bucks at the dydd site. We all did awesome on that one. We all sold ours at 14 after buying at 3. All ethanol stocks went crazy at that time. We all owned PEIx also. Another good call by bubba. I forgot that one. So he gave us FPPC that was the number 5 best returning stock in 2005 going from 50 cents to 10 bucks. He gave us NTRI which was the number one best performing stock in 2005 which he posted at dydd at under $1 and it went to 75 bucks. He gave us XTHN which went up almost 500% from where he told us to buy it and he gave us MDVX under 50 cents which even you bought. You probably still wonder why we kicked you out of our private room don't you. You will never get it. Your need to try and hurt others with lies for your own pleasure is really sick.

    • "Homie"? How old are you? 14 or 15?

      Way to avoid answering my questions. Looking forward to seeing you in court trying to use the same technique. The judge/jury are really going to like those kind of answers.

      So why not anwer my questions now.

      BTW, are you now trying to help us all by making us "aware" of the dangers of investing in penny stocks? Do you post on every penny stock board warning everyone? Why not if that is your intent?

      In your mind, do you think of yourself a "savior"?

      Classic!

    • Let's try again.

      Previous question was this:

      Please explain to us novices why you got banned from Investorvillage.com and what name were you using then. And while your at it, how about a list of all your former and current monikers here as well.

      Your answer: Blah Blah blah.

      Are you afraid to admit who you are? And are you afraid to admit the truth?
      Are you scared of who you really are inside?
      Sadly, you can't even admit it to yourself?

      Just answer the questions and I will leave you alone.

    • Let's try again.

      Previous question was this:

      Please explain to us novices why you got banned from Investorvillage.com and what name were you using then. And while your at it, how about a list of all your former and current monikers here as well.

      Your answer: Blah Blah blah.

      Are you afraid to admit who you are? And are you afraid to admit the truth?
      Are you scared of who you really are inside?
      Can't even admit it to yourself?

      Just answer the questions and I will leave you alone.

    • Sometimes you buy a company based on what it would be worth if your biggest rival got its hands on it.
      If Google Overpaid for YouTube, What's Twitter Worth?
      by: Andy Beal October 07, 2009 | about: GOOG / MSFT / VIA / VIA.B

      The big news Tuesday morning was a CNET report quoting Google CEO Eric Schmidt’s admission that he paid around $1 billion too much for YouTube.

      Here’s an extract from Schmidt’s deposition in the ongoing Viacom (VIA) suit:

      Schmidt: I believe YouTube was worth somewhere around $600 million to $700 million.

      (Viacom Attorney) Baskin: And you communicated that to the board?

      Schmidt: I did.

      Baskin: What methodology did you use to come up with that number?

      Schmidt: My judgment.

      Baskin: Was it based on cash flow analysis? Comparable companies? What were you using as the basis for your judgment?

      Schmidt: It’s just my judgment. I’ve been doing this a long time.

      Baskin: So you orally communicated to your board during the course of the board meeting that you thought a more correct valuation for YouTube was $600 million to $700 million; is that what you said, sir?

      Schmidt: Again, to help you along, I believe that they were worth $600 million to $700 million.

      Baskin: And am I correct that you were asking your board to approve an acquisition price of $1.65 billion; correct?

      Schmidt: I did.

      Baskin: I’m not very good at math, but I think that would be $1 billion or so more than you thought the company was, in fact, worth.

      Schmidt: That is correct.

      Is anyone really shocked by this? Did the jaw of any Pilgrim not drop when the purchase price was originally revealed? I mean, Google (GOOG) paid $1.65 billion for a company that had no discernable revenue. It paid that price based Schmidt’s "judgment."

      It paid based on hype.

      Which leads us to Twitter. And you thought you’d get to read at least one post without mention of Twitter.

      You see, Twitter is the modern-day YouTube. It has all the hype and none of the revenues. If you removed hype from the math, Twitter is worth a couple hundred million. Throw hype and momentum back into the mix and Twitter is easily worth more than what Google paid for YouTube.

      All Twitter needs to do is create a rumor that one of the big tech companies–Microsoft (MSFT) for example–is sniffing around. That’s what caused Schmidt to abandon logic:

      And they had indicated to us that they would be sold, and we believed that there would be a competing offer–because of who Google was–paying much more than they were worth.

      Sometimes you buy a company based on what it would be worth if your biggest rival got its hands on it. To Google, that was worth the extra $1 billion. Now we just need to see how badly someone wants to get their hands on Twitter!

    • Let's try again.

      Previous question was this:

      Please explain to us novices why you got banned from Investorvillage.com and what name you using then. And while your at it, how about a list of all your former and current monikers here as well.

      Your answer: Blah Blah blah.

      Are you afraid to admit who you are? And are you afraid to admit the truth?
      Are you scared of who you really are inside?
      Can't even admit it to yourself?

      Just answer the questions and I will leave you alone.

    • View More Messages
 
HIPP
0.120.00(-4.00%)Jul 24 3:54 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.