In the afternoon session Google's attorneys tried to rehabilitate Dr. Ungar on redirect. Ungar was asked what he did at Google and said he was involved in search as opposed to the ad side of the business. Presumably this questioning was designed to show Ungar was involved in search and knew something about it even though he didn't teach it. Also, it was designed to show that he would not have had much interaction with databases. Next he was asked about his teaching and whether he was a professor of computer science at the University of Pennsylvania, a prestigious Ivy League school. Answer, yes. What GOOG attorney tried to infer is that if he was a Prof. of computer science that must be the equivalent of having a degree in it. This redirect appeared to be too little too late. Some regurgitation of testimony continued and Judge said in response to one objection from VRNG (which was sustained) that "we have heard all this." Net result, even after redirect was that Ungar was less than credible. Next Google witness was Dr. Keith R. Ugone who was qualified as a former Marine, hard worker, put himself through school, from a small town outside Dallas, etc. Had a long career in forensic damage estimation, worked for major accounting firm and so on. When he gets to the damages in this case he bases those damages on a hypothetical negotiation with Lycos that obviously never happened. He suggests that given that Lycos was out of money and the patents were recently purchased under duress (Lycos) that we are all here talking about $3-5 Million. There was a sense right up until he said $3-5M that he was reasonably credible. He spoke slowly, clearly and has a respectable background. But it seemed apparent when he said $3-5M that this must be a joke. Some of the jurors looked visibly put off. I think the jury is aware, or may well be, that there have been settlement negotiations between the parties. $3-5M is probably about the legal tab at this point. It simply was not credible. As with Thursday's Ungar testimony, Ugone has not been cross examined by VRNG yet. My guess is that that will be quite interesting. One observation that seems apparent from the testimony in this trial is that Google, rather than pursuing an avenue that seems reasonable, almost always chooses to go for broke. Ugone could have said $100 or 150M for example, which is still about third of what Dr. Becker has offered up. To summarize, thus far Ungar has largely if not completely been discredited and Ugone was doing well up until he offered his damage assessment. Again, he may well have had a shot making a case for a smaller award because as I have stated he was credible, but his damage estimate was over the top. I will be there Monday if trial proceeds. The Judge has instructed jurors and counsel to check the court hotline for updates on whether the court will be closed.
Kind of beside the point, but are Ungar and Ugone the same ethnic origin? I just have hard time pronouncing both in one sentence.
It may helpful to review one of my posts earlier on the subject of Ugone's testimony:
A patent is a transferable property by the patent laws. The date of the rights transfer has no meaning to the patent claims. Neither have the purchase price of a patent any meaning to the patent claims.
In fact, the price of a patent at its rights transfer may be higher or lower than the filing fees paid by the original inventor. Those are non-issues to the patent claims.
The price of a patent is determined by the seller and the buyer, which constitutes the market value at the time of transfer.
The market value of a patent changes according to the claimes on the demonstratable properties, of which the values change all the time. That's what makes investment in a patent worthwhile.
Ugone's arguments were just so weak and larghable! Google will lose huge, if it waits for the jury verdict.
Hi and thanks for your contributions. I have a question regarding Google's revenues. Are the plaintiffs aloud to bring this figure up during testimony? It would seem that maybe the jurors may low-ball the damages because if they are not allowed to know Google's revenues and net profits. A couple hundred million would seem alot to a regular juror, Any thoughtS?
I don't know the background and education level of the jurors, but my opinion is any reasonable human being should be able see that $3-5M to RIDICULOUS when condiser that Google's total revenue since 2005 is in the HUNDRED of BILLION$.
Latest report I am getting is that the Judge would not allow Unger to be questioned on his reprimand, that's OK because it seems his testimony was virtually destroyed using his own words.
Thanks Edavcourt for the updade.
Based on your report, I can only guess that Google was not able to find a true expert who agrees with Google on the technical merit of this case, and Ungar is the only expert Google can find who is willing to say anything as long as long he gets pay.