If I was a Juror and heard that I would be thinkingthe party was copable.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Sorry to burst everyone's bubble, but I have emailed back and forth with Dan Ravicher who is attending the trial. I asked him if he could confirm/deny the rumor of " an initio" and he said the following and i Quote "I'm not aware of the judge making any rulings on when damages, if any, should begin. If you want to point me to a document, I'm happy to give it a read."
Ugh, part short lived.... I have position in VRNG and have supported it all the way. Just trying to sort out the facts here.
The term is "ab initio". Ravicher tweeted he was not at the trial today. That is why he can not confirm anything. Your post says he was at the trial today and implies the judge didn't make that ruling.
We need facts on this board not opinions based of presumptive knowledge.
Ravicher, tweet the jury can award anythig it wants to award. The judge can reduce it if he feels it is excessive.
The judges ruling if that is the case means, if the judge feels google is responsible going back to when the patent was granted, or when the plaintiffs claimed infringement began, he can up the $493 million sought by VRNG to amount he feels is reasonable.
Major point of law is still "did Google break the law by infringing on the rights of the patent owner.
The ruling though puts more pressure on Google to maybe settle before jury verdict because now they know if they loose the damages will extend back further than they were pleading.
He made the following tweet that he was not at the trial today, how would he know then?
@oneskipb Had to be back in NYC today so couldn't attend day 2 of Vringo $VRNG v Google $GOOG trial. Hope to go back down if work permits.
The jury has heard that Google wants to be responsible for infringement from 2010. The jury heard google admit they are culpable from 2010.
The jury heard the judge say that google is culpable from the beginning. The jury surmises that google is culpable from 2004. ( Ab initio )