Terp seriously stop posting ridiculous messages. VHC is a tiny little blip on AAPL radar screen. This entire thing will end quietly after all legal options for AAPL are exhausted. It may end up being a small footnote in the Annual Report - however that footnote will not read "damages from loss of lawsuit that should never have gone to trial and we fired the idiot legal team who let it" it will more likely read "3rd party investments" and show up under Goodwill and intangibles on the balance.
Not sure about the original poster but there was new testimony yesterday that indicates Google agreed to indemnify Samsung on all but two of the patents in the Apple lawsuit. Anyone using Android should be knocking on Googles door today asking for similar indemnification. I know this is not VRNG news per se it enforces the overall message - these are sophisticated companies with armies of lawyers (not just engineers) and those lawyers will cut a deal when it makes sense to do so.
Thats not true.
OEM customers who want to adopt the GABRIEL Connection Technology™ as their solution for establishing secure connections using secure domain names within their products can purchase a technology license. VirnetX has developed GABRIEL Connection Technology™ Software Development Kit (SDK) to assist with rapid integration of these techniques into existing software implementations with minimal code changes. The SDK consists of object libraries, sample code, testing and quality assurance tools and the supporting documentation necessary for a customer to implement our technology. These tools are comprised of software for a secure domain name connection test server, a relay test server and a registration test server.
New testimony yesterday indicates that Google agreed to indemnify Samsung on all but two of the patents in the Apple lawsuit. Anyone using Android should be knocking on Googles door today asking for similar indemnification. I know this is not VHC news but it enforces my overall message these are sophisticated companies with armies of lawyers (not just engineers) and those lawyers will cut a deal when it makes sense to do so.
Qualcomm would be the most successful example but there are dozens of companies (that you would consider an NPE) that have licensed their technologies to larger companies - Technicolor, Dolby and Fraunhofer for multimedia codecs would be other larger examples. In the first example they went on to create a large companies becuase that is what their board wanted. However a lot of money was at risk there so the later examples are a few large by revenue but small by headcount who chose to license - a generally a low risk business. If you look at the "credits" or "about" menus in most software you will find dozens of examples - the first menu system in the iPod is another good example. In the case of VHC you can download their SDK from their website if you are interested in incorporating their API's technology into your products.
Johnny thats just naive or maybe wishful thinking on your part. Even if VRNG did run out of money, which is highly unlikely the line of lawyers wanting to get in on this would stretch across the great state of Texas. They also have about a dozen funding options at this stage of the case.
Google are exhausting their legal options because that is their right and they may (about 10% chance) get some leverage during appeals - it is their fiscal \ fiduciary responsibility to exhaust all the legal options first as it may save their shareholders additional pain - remember they already lost the lawsuit. but it also discourage NPE's. Googles problem is the longer they drag it out the less likely it is that VRNG will want to settle for less than the courts damages, not to mention negative PR and a very poor reflection on senior management allowing this to go to trial. The facts were overwhelming in VRNG's favor from an engineering perspective - especially given the history between Lyocs and Google.
Just oral arguments - no decision for a few months especially if tey ask for new briefs etc. Overall appeals take 8-12 months before they are full exhausted. There will be a lot of speculation based on the "tone" of the oral arguments. Anything perceived as negative will hit the PPS hard so watch for buying opportunities if you are betting the CAFC odds.
silver, it is more likely just courtesy between the attorneys. Both parties understand that Google must exhaust all legal options before they can seriously consider any type of settlement. That said, anything can really happen. In my experience most defendants wait until after the oral arguments at CAFC. Statistical odds at CAFC are not good for Google about 10%. The issue for Google in delaying is that the other party has less reason to negotiate for less than the damages.
Terp, how is the legal case going in Apples favor? It looks like the normal process and time frame that eventually ends in either damages, settlement or re-trial (
Apple has two main arguments in their motion. The district court has not submitted final judgement on the RR so we have no idea what our damages are, and we are appealing the damages judgement for the first part of the trial (non RR) and if we win that appeal it will make the rest moot.
There are a few issue with the arguments....
The district court made it perfectly clear that the RR would be applied to ALL Apple Products that continue to infringe. These include any products that have the Facetime Application or VPN on Demand functionality. Side note... It is the VPN stuff thats kills Apple not FT and is also what was argued successfully in the oral by VHC in front of CAFC - this case is not about one application (like Facetime). It's about the underlying VPN security in the network stack - built into all IOS and OSX devices. This code is also accessible via API by Apple 3rd party developers. It can't just "be removed" and when Apple suggested doing that after they lost the trial (the 6.4 IOS patch) many Enterprise clients freaked out so Apple pulled the patch. All that noise about Akamai workarounds - fixing Facetime - using relay server etc does not get Apple off the hook in any meaningful way and VHC knew that - the court crushed Apple on the workaround nonsense and it will end up costing them 100's of millions extra now - still "chump change" for Apple but not for VHC.
CAFC can do anything here but any stay on the appeal would only be stayed until a final judgement is entered and this may end up being a binary event for the district court. The court is already no fan of Apple (hence the enhanced RR- for good reason - Apple played games from day. So all VHC need is the court to enter a final judgement - even Apple said this in their motion - they would expect CAFC to act on that. This legal strategy may end up pushing a final judgement with the district court - careful what you wish for Apple, but what's the real angle here?
Reading the posts - longs saying we are breaking out and shorts blasting FUD constantly that the sky is falling because of CAFC oral arguments etc. This is utter nonsense from BOTH sides and nothing we say ehre influences the PPS anyway.
Without significantly higher volume none of the recent activity means anything at all. Its just momentum trading, some minor covering (
The constitutional grounds are in there for a (long shot) SCOTUS argument \ consideration but it is highly unlikely Google can make a case on the violation of their rights i.e 7th amendment. The damages in question are related to the Jury outcome in the first trial where Google presented a vigorous defense and their own expert witnesses testimony - it took a year for heavens sake - with Google playing games the entire time. Bottomline Google's argument failed to convince a jury. As long as the Jury was given proper treatment and instructions by the Judge i.e they were not mislead - then CAFC will move on to the next issue. They are not there to retry the case.
Interestingly enough Google tried to use the same damages argument in their recent motion to CAFC - i.e the patents can't be worth anything more than they were originally purchased for - this is basically an absurd argument and one the Jury clearly disagreed with in the first trial. How that made it there is anyones guess but it shows they will throw anything against the wall at this point to see what sticks; they have nothing to loose so they may as well do it - I guess.
I hear you loud and clear Dog, but serious investors in patent plays understand the system and have patience (or at least can afford attorneys to advise them on the motions). In terms of the financials VRNG has plenty of cash to see this through not to mention about a dozen different financial strategies that may be implemented at this point of the case. Google will exhaust every legal option but time continues to works against them and the damages could be staggering if they don't get their act together and settle this - as they should have done years ago.
PS. All of the Apple vs Google negative press is not helping big tech right now - their management is being exposed for what they really are - extremely large wealthy competitors that will do anything to annihilate their smaller competitors or assimilate them into the fold - that trial is rubbing many engineers in the valley the wrong way. Anyway good luck.
Dog, as always thanks for the insults.
On point 1 your analysis is flawed because the patents are no longer solely the property of Lang and on point 2 the odds on SCOTUS are something around 3% so I will take those odds. If I remember correctly you were shorting heavily at 2.70? Just read some of your old posts, your arguments are as ridiculous now as they were then.
Time is ticking away with CAFC and the odds are not in Googles favor,
Actually, statistically a CAFC retrial is a little less than 10% for patent cases like these - usually complete in 8-12 months. SCOTUS do not usually take on direct patent infringement cases but they do have an interesting ruling on Software Patents this summer. Most believe it will just be more of the same due to the Pandoras Box it opens. The problem with SCOTUS for large technology companies is that they are the largest patent holders of anyone so in essence are arguing with themselves if they were in vacuum - just not something for SCOTUS to rule on. We also know they all collude with each other (i.e Apple \ Google hiring pacts and cross licensing deals i.e IBM) that the smaller guys may not participate in. Importantly there are thousands of small and medium sized technology companies that have also submitted letters against sweepingly broad patent reform because it puts them at a competitive disadvantage, not to mention changes the value of their existing IP and licensing portfolios. Although I do think a bunch of changes will eventually be implemented for future cases i.e Looser Pays, Mediation (first) VS Trial and so on, PTAB restriction for proxies and the never ending IPR's etc.
More insane arguments from Google to CAFC due to Adwords being so profitable (Changed Circumstance) thus Google would only agree to a tiny % licensee fee etc AND to IGNORE the JURY 3.5%!!!! This is crazy, the Jury came up with 3.5% not the judge.
"The changed circumstances actually tip in Defendants' favor, and require that the royalty rate for post-judgment royalties be less than the 3.5% royalty rate that the jury found. Furthermore, post-judgment royalties should be capped at roughly $4 million or less, consistent with the $3.2 million sale of the Asserted Patents in 2011 and the estimated $4 million license of the Asserted Patents to Microsoft in 2013. "
This argument is saying we should ignore YEARS of litigation in IP\Protect vs Google because Microsoft decided to license and cut a deal. None of this is going anywhere with CAFC, VRNG will destroy these types of arguments not to mention once again that Microsoft's license HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TRIAL. If Google wanted to use Microsoft at trial they should have introduced that as evidence. And what about the 5% of Googles judgement that is ALSO part of the MSFT license - do Google think CAFC will just ignore that! VRNG will have a field day in their response to CAFC. Amateur hour at best from Google.
From CFAC motion ... another example of reverse logic from Googles motion in the context of negotiating a reduced RR. This is typical arrogance for a large technology company.
"If anything, the fact that AdWords had proven profitable by 2012 would cut in favor of a reduced royalty rate. Google would be unwilling to accept large royalty rate that would yield an enormous amount of money in light of AdWords' profitability, while Plaintiff would be relatively willing to accept a more modest royalty rate because
AdWords' proven profitability would guarantee it a large recovery even with a modest royalty rate."
The arrogance here is clear and with absolutely no regard for the law, the original trial or the value of the patents. It was GOOGLE who chose NOT TO license the technology NOT VRNG. Above they are say that VRNG would be "relatively willing" to accept even a modest royalty rate i.e FRAND. Maybe true but Google it was you who choose NOT TO LICENSE for a reasonable sum. Instead you told IP\Protect and Lycos for that matter to f-off and sue. Well thats what happened, you lost, the damages ensued and you still to this very day infringe. VRNG legal team will destroy these types of arguments in front of CAFC - not to mention they are not relevant to the original trials damages evidence etc.