Why is that? Because the street knows that Google will appeal until they bleed Vringo dry.
you mean people like you who have held this stock instead of selling and making 20% in just about every other stock?
the same people said that Google will settle.
Chris Faulkner was going to have an ipo for BREITLING OIL & GAS, but since BREITLING OIL & GAS bought BERX, Faulkner is saying he might not have an ipo and just promote BERX. It was all on Closing Bell on CNBC on Friday.
you want to make money Google is going down , look up BERX. Do research. I bought Friday when chris Faulkner was talking abut the buyout of BERX. I think its worth the risk at .25 cents and chris Faulkner a very knowledgable oil guy (known as the Frack master) is the CEO of BREITLING OIL & GAS.
who cares about MDavid aka bama. Do your research on BERX. It's. $.25 a share, worth a purchase since BREITLING OIL & GAS and their CEO named frack master aka chris Faulkner are buying BERX.
they got bought out by BREITLING OIL & GAS Breitling CEO Chris Faulkner was on CNBC on Friday talking about his buyout of Berx. Saying they will not go public but pump Berx up. He couldn't use the name BERX bt if you look BERX you'll see the news about Breitling Oil and Gas Corporation buying. Frack Master' Chris Faulkner is the CEO of BREITLING OIL & GAS
see you at $4.35 geez you guys have been saying that since Vringo filled the paper work to sue Google. That was a long time ago now and Vringo is 1.35 cents under that price.
my guess is the judge won't rule until congress and the U.S. Supreme Court do. Because if he does Google can site the both the U.S. Supreme Court and Senate. The house already approved the bill and the president already voiced his support of the bill.
Supreme Court to decide on patent protections for software
BY LAWRENCE HURLEY
WASHINGTON Fri Dec 6, 2013 3:29pm EST
People walk outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington December 3, 2013.
CREDIT: REUTERS/JONATHAN ERNST
(Reuters) - The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to rule on the divisive issue of what kinds of software are eligible for patent protection in a case being closely watched by the technology industry.
The court's decision may prove key to deciding under what circumstances companies can be sued for using certain software in their products.
The court said in a one-line order that it would hear a case brought by Alice Corporation Pty Ltd, which holds a patent for a computer system that facilitates financial transactions. The patent is challenged by CLS Bank International.
The court took no action on another case raising the same issue involving a patent dispute between WildTangent Inc and Ultramercial Inc.
The deep interest that the software industry and patent experts have in what is a threshold issue in patent litigation was underscored by the number of companies and industry groups that asked the court to decide the issue.
Companies including Google Inc, Hewlett-Packard Co, Facebook Inc and Netflix Inc had already signaled their interest in the issue by asking the court to hear the WildTangent case. Many also filed briefs in lower courts.
With the rise of computer-based products in recent years, courts have struggled to apply patent law. Some legal experts, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital civil liberties group, say that courts are too keen to uphold patents on ideas that are too vague to deserve protection.
Such vague patents can be used against big tech companies, which say they are forced to spend money defending lawsuits instead of investing in research and development. Technology companies are particularly concerned about litigation brought by so-called "patent trolls," defined as companies that hold patents only for the purpose of suing other companies seeking to develop new products.
Companies differ over what type of patent protections software products should receive. While some, like Google, favor looser protections, others, like International Business Machines Corp would prefer that most software be patent eligible.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which has primary responsibility for interpreting patent law, has struggled to adopt a test that judges can use to review software patent claims, with various judges reaching different conclusions.
"Hopefully, the case will accomplish at the Supreme Court what it could not at the Federal Circuit: greater clarity in the law," said Alice's attorney, Carter Phillips. CLS's attorney, Mark Perry, declined to comment.
The legal question boils down to how innovative an invention should have to be to receive legal protection.
The law in question is the U.S. Patent Act, which states that anyone who "invents or discovers a new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter," or an improvement of an existing one, can get a patent.
An invention related to an abstract idea can be patented, but it must include a way of applying the idea.
Mark Lemley, a patent law expert at Stanford Law School, wrote in a brief filed on behalf of Facebook and others that the appeals court had left the law "hopelessly confused."
Lemley wrote in an email on Friday that he expects the high court to agree with the appeals court that the patents in question were not patent eligible.
"But the devil will be in the detail of the court's opinion," he added.
Dennis Crouch, a professor at the University of Missouri School of Law who blogs about patent law, said he is amazed that courts have yet to determine once and for all that software can be patented.
The confusion has led patent lawyers to play down the software elements of inventions when applying for patents at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, he added.
"My hope is that this case will be a vehicle for the Supreme Court to clarify the law so that we can get back to business rather than playing language games at the patent office," Crouch said.
The case is Alice Corporation v. CLS Bank, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 13-298.
(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Additional reporting by Dan Levine; Editing by Howard Goller and Richard Chang)
Vringo, VirnetX Holding Corp, and other similar companies are on watch Friday following new legislation aimed at stemming patent trolls. On Thursday, the U.S. House passed a bill which limits frivolous lawsuits by patent holders. The WSJ noted that House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte sponsored the bill, which won strong bipartisan support in passing by a 325-91 vote.
yeah I'll go back in if it gets chap enough. And at $2.00 I can afford to hold it for 3-5 years until they see a dime.