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

Augme Technologies, Inc. Message Board

  • wakemewhenthedaisiesbloom wakemewhenthedaisiesbloom Nov 16, 2012 8:42 PM Flag

    answer to madhatter post on IV

    Madhatter, I believe you read this message board as well. I dont post over there, so I will answer your many inquiries about this here:
    I'm curious about the ruling below:
    The Court granted summary judgment in favor of Yahoo! on the basis that the accused products lack a “service response” ( 11-13) and an “embedded first code module” (Id. at 13-20), two claims in Augme’s patents.
    Particularly Spero's referal to Yahoo's products lack "service response" and "embedded first code module".

    As per the judge finding that Yahoo's product lacks a "service response"? A service response is the page you get back when you click on anything, or do anything that solicits a response on the Internet, like getting a page back that is custom tailored based on what is known about you, and the platform you are using. That is a service response, and what is meant by the same in the augme patents.

    An 'embedded first code module', which according to the judge, Yahoo's product also lacks, is the code initiated whenever a webpage is loaded. Meaning, when you load a page, it executes code that does something. That is what an embeded 1st code module is, and also what is meant in the augme patents. Now go look at any webpage and see if there is code there, then reckon that with this idiot judge.

    So now, think about this, if that is the case, then how can the judge come to that conclusion? The answer is that it is a very strained interpretation (similar to SCJ John Roberts very strained and contorted ruling finding the obummer care individual mandate to be sound in constitutional law), and one that is based on going way out of the way to avoid the obviously truth.

    The judge is full of #$%$, and the decision was purely 100% horse-#$%$... period. The decision was a political travesty, and based on distorted and contorted logic, justified by semantics in my opinion. As I have stated before, with what is known about the yahoo targeting process, there is absolutely no way that they are not infringing. There is really no way to sidestep these patents. They are pretty tight. These judges hob-knob with the hoipoloi of silicon valley, and New York society (McMahon), so they know where their toast and caviar come from. Augme is an ant, or a pile of dog-#$%$ in their estimation, and an insignificant flea-bite as far as they are concerned, while a finding in favor of augme could have very far reaching ramifications, and they are completely aware of that fact. It is that simple.

    We will have to see where appeal takes us. I wonder what would happen if another judge is guided more by the actual evidence, and determines something completely different? I would not want to be spero attempting to justify boneheaded crap from the bench.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Wake,

      I totally agree with this post. The ruling by Spero was incorrect and unjust in my opinion. I expect the appellate process will yield a similar conclusion. To state there were no issues of fact in dispute is ludicrous at best.

      The good thing about that ruling finally being posted by Spero just Friday, is that Augme can now formally file its appeal, an appeal that Yahoo tried desperately to stop yet failed.

      I believe the strength of Augme's cases and its patents have always been strong. They've unfortunately gotten a poor draw on judges. Things could have just as easily gone similarly to those of Vringo who was fortunate enough to get a quick trial date resulting in its recent victory.

      • 2 Replies to arngfsfytqw4
      • i see one of your posts we can not reply toooo....there are many rational posters...but please not that the legal system is NOT rational and running a company NOT rational...its all ego and politics and has absolutely nothing to do with the low life investors...they dont care...if RH did he would have said i want $1 salary and give me stock options and not give me $350k base and then $250k bonus on cutting jobs so i can take that money in pocket...oh yeah lets cut 5 poor slobs jobs so they can pay meeeeeeee...that is so great...lets ruin 5 poor slobs families as i need to cut them to pay meeee or yes meeee who already has 300 plus millions in the bank and really i don't need the job but i need to stroke my lets suck this company dry as i am on several other BOD and really dont have time for AUGT...but who cares if i get i don't need to do much but fire people and if i fire enough they will give me 250k, which i really don't need but hey i will look great for doing it....and being cash pay me as soon as i can do that...any one could do that...even the mail room please...stop

      • They didn't get a poor judge they got a judge and the system is the system!

    • Wake, from a technical perspective this ruling is pure crap. These two component are essential part of every web inquiry. How he comes to that conclusion that Yahoo is "lacking" this process is beyond me. It sure does smell fishy. I don't want to be part of any controversy but payoffs are not uncommon in such situation. Unfortunately for him an appeal will tarnish his capability to rule unbiased in such matters.

      Sentiment: Strong Buy