Recent

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

Vringo, Inc. Message Board

  • casp321 casp321 Feb 17, 2013 8:12 PM Flag

    Why Google, NOT, JJ went into length of laches discussion?

    It was STRANGE to see Google going in EXTENDED discussion about why and HOW JJ ruled the way he did to LIMIT Vringo collectin DAMAGEs from september 2001 and NOT 2005. Why would JJ close the laches case by oedering in a few sentences while Google trying in many pages to make clear of what JJ went trough instead of JJ speaking out his mind during those time that Google gave him document review while DENYING Vringo counselsd from having access to the same document? The answe might lie in the way judge Leonard took away laches ruling and judge Jackson asked both counsels NOT bring up Google passt earning before even Google providing him the document related to "laches" which is part of the hot isses these days?

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • just reminder to those might forget there is justice:

      justice n. 1) fairness. 2) moral rightness. 3) a scheme or system of law in which every person receives his/her/its due from the system, including all rights, both natural and legal. One problem is that attorneys, judges, and legislatures often get caught up more in procedure than in achieving justice for all. Example: the adage "justice delayed is justice denied," applies to the burdensome procedures, lack of sufficient courts, clogging the system with meritless cases, and the use of the courts to settle matters which could be resolved by negotiation. The imbalance between court privileges obtained by attorneys for the wealthy and for the person of modest means, the use of delay and "blizzards" of unnecessary paper by large law firms, and judges who fail to cut through the underbrush of procedure all erode justice. 4) an appellate judge, the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the U. S. Supreme Court, a member of a Federal Court of Appeal, and judges of any of the various state appellate courts.

    • Apparently too many who they know, close or far, have invested in google to rule in favour of the justice and against google. It's like someone might be saying you are 'robbing' their bank, even if the bank going broke nothing to do with robbing? It depends who offer them the job in the first place and they might not care to deal with what a justice mean?

    • Why did Google, not JJ, tried to go in minute by minutr discussin of wht went in the court with JJ?

      • 1 Reply to casp321
      • casp321, all very good points and the exact reason I've turned negitive on any positive result coming Vringos way! It's been one motion killed after another in favor of defendants. This after going all the way back to Markman Hearing where Vringo had a commanding lead intheir favor then the collapse in the courtroom starting with Laches. It's been all Googles way since then and Edvacourt has painted a rosy picture even while witnessing the dramatic verdict reading and penning several articles. Not one thing has come to fruition he had forseen, those are some bad odds. Vringo cannot go head to haed with Google much longer hence attempts to sue anyone else for some revenue stream. When things need to be sealed that's the end of tranparacy and answers for investors as youv'e watched Vringo go silent! They are now in deep trouble and this Judges job was to put matters in such a dark hole that when found would look like a corpse! All meat gone!

    • By blocking Vringo to collect from 2005, the judge saving Google face from criminal its activities
      by casp321•Nov 1, 2012 2:10 PM.

      casp321•Nov 1, 2012 2:37 PM

      Strange, is not it? In Vringo case the judge telling Vringo counsels they moved slow and late but in ON2 case still the Judge is NOT finalized ON2 OPT-oUT to send it shareholders? What are they waiting for? For expirations? Of how many are in their list to be expired before the case gets in frong of different judge? Why they wait to see more EXPIRATION? Who is paying who?

    • from different pilot's report by the same reporter:

      this was correction, but I do not know how long after but the PPS crash was so fast that ...

      yahoo blocking this repeat from october 31, 2012 report by the same person??

      y Tim McGlone
      The Virginian-Pilot
      October 31, 2012
      CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story incorrectly reported that Vringo told the jury it is owed a minimum of $500,000. Vringo's estimate was at least $500 mllion.

    • not related to JJ & Google but interesting to know:

      By Adam Cohen | @adamscohen | October 31, 2011

      A case in point: West Virginia. In 2007, the West Virginia Supreme Court, on a 3-2 vote, threw out a $50 million damage award against the owner of a coal company. Funny thing: the man who would have had to pay the $50 million had spent $3 million to help elect the justice who cast the deciding vote. The West Virginia ruling was so outrageous that in 2009 the United States Supreme Court overturned it. But that was unusual. In most cases, judges are free to decide cases involving individuals and groups that have paid big money to get them elected.

    • Reply to
      Yahoo blocking EXPOSING Short SCAM
      by casp321•Oct 31, 2012 10:55 AM.

      casp321•Nov 1, 2012 6:26 AM

      0users liked this postsusers disliked this posts0
      Reply
      .

      Much a later time after different activities and misinformation circuit break broke more than once then VRNG and VRNG.W were haled at Halt Time: 15:08:44 pm on 10/31/2012 with code number T1???

      ----------------

      Reply to
      What is a T.1 Trading Halt Code?
      by casp321•Nov 1, 2012 5:26 AM.

      casp321•Nov 1, 2012 6:20 AM

      0users liked this postsusers disliked this posts0
      Reply
      .

      funny that yahoo blocking what they try to keep record of to let someone look into it through email they generate and send you. Making easy for those from government to access to your private files but blocking reposting this?

      Re: Yahoo blocking EXPOSING Short SCAM
      By casp321 . Oct 31, 2012 10:57 AM . Permalink
      They dumpped 734K at 10:50 am then IMMEDIIATELY bought 789K a minute after at much lower p...
      They dumpped 734K at 10:50 am then IMMEDIIATELY bought 789K a minute after at much lower price on 10:51 am

      -------------

      Reply to
      Yahoo blocking EXPOSING Short SCAM
      by casp321•Oct 31, 2012 10:55 AM.

      casp321•Nov 1, 2012 6:17 AM

      0users liked this postsusers disliked this posts0
      Reply
      .

      from 10:46 AM to 10:50 AMM there were VRNG shares dump at 1.67 millions, that's in 5 minutes. Then from 10:51 AM to 10:57 AM, immediately, some bought 3.01 million VRNG shares,
      -------------

      Reply to
      Yahoo blocking EXPOSING Short SCAM
      by casp321•Oct 31, 2012 10:55 AM.

      casp321•Oct 31, 2012 11:25 AM

      0users liked this postsusers disliked this posts0
      Reply
      .

      from 10:46 AM to 10:50 AMM there were VRNG shares dump at 1.67 millions, that's in 5 minutes. Then from 10:51 AM to 10:57 AM, immediately, some bought 3.01 million VRNG shares,

      ---------------

      Reply to
      Yahoo blocking EXPOSING Short SCAM
      by casp321•Oct 31, 2012 10:55 AM.

      casp321•Oct 31, 2012 10:59 AM

      1users liked this postsusers disliked this posts0
      Reply
      .

      What is in it for Yahoo, one might ask: WOW short or who ever dumpped 734K the somebought 789K a MINUTE after???

      Reply to
      Yahoo blocking EXPOSING Short SCAM
      by casp321•Oct 31, 2012 10:55 AM.

      casp321•Oct 31, 2012 10:57 AM

      0users liked this postsusers disliked this posts0
      Reply
      .

      They dumpped 734K at 10:50 am then IMMEDIIATELY bought 789K a minute after at much lower price on 10:51 am

    • collectin DAMAGEs from september 2011 and NOT 2005

      • 1 Reply to casp321
      • Why did DEFENDANTs counsel, on January 25, 2013, go into DETAILED disscussion of events taking place by minutes on October 31, 2012, a day prior to JJ denying Vringo from collecting damages prior to 2011 and after 2005, knowing that they did NOT provide documents they gave JJ to review to decide on laches, the decision which took place the NEXT day when JJ OERDERING MOTION DENIED for Vringo in collecting damegaes since 2005.

        Google counsel possibly sees the LEGAL implication of a complex SCAM that might END a judge's career before even having time to call quit and retire, the way judge Stilman did on Sep 31, 2012. casp321

        ---------------

        I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al

        Filing: 865

        Declaration re 863 Opposition (of Dave Nelson) in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment Under Rule 52(B) and a New Trial Under Rule 59 on Laches by AOL Inc., Gannett Company, Inc., Google Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc., Target Corporation.
        ---------------

        I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al

        Filing: 884
        ORDER denying 835 Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment under Rule 52(b) and a New Trial under Rule 59 on Laches. Signed by District Judge Raymond A. Jackson and filed on 1/31/13.

 
VRNG
1.970.00(0.00%)May 6 4:00 PMEDT