Posted to Pacer yesterday in regards to the Yahoo! case.
Anyone got any insight into what Augme is trying to accomplish here?
Rich, perhaps a part of you already knows that your explanation is entirely lost to someone who declares without any hesitation or qualification, "Again, being richer is better than being righter." But perhaps you also know that many others here appreciate the meaning of the saying, "no one is richer than he who needs little for himself." Given how often many of us worry about how much money we will make in AUGT, it is imporant to be reminded in this way that our greatest investment is in our character and then, at least for a while, refresh our prespectives.
Chris, I would like to add my affirmation of your post regarding your friend to that of Arn. I have spent forty years working with people of all classes, levels of education, and personalities, and I have developed a true appreciation of those who gladly sacrifice for the benefit of others. I greatly respect those, who like your friend, are willing to give of themselves to the betterment of others, most of whom they don't even know. And you are blessed for having had him as a friend. Thanks for sharing.
Sorry for your loss. It's clear your friend was a good man who truly enriched others lives through his efforts. To often, the market and these boards in particular, have a unique ability to desensitize and dehumanize people through the ability to post anonymously.
What I genuinely like about you is that I sense your last post was something that not only came from the heart, but something you'd say face to face if I were to meet you. I believe your persona here is very much in line with the person you really are. I think few here can say the same.
On another note, I'll comment back to you later on embed because I have some insight and a different interpretation of both judges rulings. I just didn't think this was the proper post to do it in.
Cheers to your friend. Clearly a rich man in the true sense of the word.
Warn, you said
"Again, being richer is better than being righter.Why it's so important for you et al to be right in an anonymous message board forum instead of richer by owning a good investment continually amuses me."
I happy that I amuse you with my supposed right over rich attitude. The truth is, my definition of rich just might be a little different than yours.
I had a friend die this week who spent the last 10 years or so of his life going around the country to indian reservations and natural disaster sites to help others. He spent the last 4 years or so in a little town in outside Greensburg, KS where a tornado nearly wiped everything out about 4 years ago. At 80 years old, he continued to labor and spent his pension money to buy paint and other material to help other people, This little town recently named a day in his honor for all that he did for everyone. That my friend is my definition of rich.
Enjoy your money and when you die, you can even insist they stuff your casket with all your cash so everyone knows how much you made. Just hope anyone shows up to see the spectacle.
I am sorry if I seemed to imply that you said anything "blatantly false" in regard to the costs of litigation. I was not referring to you. I still think that unless you have other information, it might be wrong to assume that the AOL case(I am talking the original Tacoda case here) is maxed out on costs. Remember that it was GP's predecessor(s) who worked that case for the first 2 or 3 years.
I believe that you provide a great source of valuable information and insights (along with Sirius, Timbo, cortiz as well as Warn, and many others who probably tend to present counter arguments to yours.)
I have already concede to you that the Markman definitions leave us in a decent position, but we did not get all the definitions we wanted. "Embed" is one that I was sure that Spero would contradict McMahon on, but we did not get the more liberal interpretation that was sought in either case.
None the less, I respect your responses just the same.