Tuesday, October 30, 2012

VRNG - "edvacourt" Full Post

Here's ED's full post regarding his update today (read from bottom to top). This doesn't include quite a bit of commentary he makes later in the thread:

Posts by "edvacourt"

Re: Re: Re: Re: Update, October 30 By edvacourt . 9 minutes ago . Permalink Go to topic

You got it ghart. I actually posted a first update around 2:30PM only to realize when I got back to my hotel that it had never actually posted. Haven't had this problem before today. I will say that Steve Kim is dead on with his article about the latest hail mary "dismiss everything' motion by Google. Judge Jackson has shown throughout that he wants the jury to decide this one and it looks like they may have it tomorrow at the EOD or sometime Thursday morning. 0 users liked this posts 0 users disliked this posts Reply Ignore User

Report Abuse Re: Re: Re: Re: Update, October 30 By edvacourt . 22 minutes ago . Permalink Go to topic

Last part: Some housekeeping notes: Google has no more witnesses. They have rested their case. I think since Judge Jackson would not let them talk about anything that would be considered expert testimony (which I think Google was perhaps trying to backdoor) Google just decided to pass on putting them up there. Dr. Carbonell will appear tomorrow as a rebuttal witness. The judge said that he anticipated getting to closing arguments and jury instructions tomorrow afternoon. He said it may not be possible and that he would not split up closing arguments (on different days). Each side will have an hour. The endgame is close people and I believe the question has moved away from whether Google infringed to how much is that infringement worth. 8 users liked this posts 0 users disliked this posts Reply Ignore User

Report Abuse Re: Re: Re: Update, October 30 By edvacourt . 23 minutes ago . Permalink Go to topic

Part 3:

7. One particularly damning area seemed to be when Sherwood puts up document # DX256, pg 15 the direct exam of Dr. Ungar. A slide comes up showing the top 50 webpages visited in August 2003 by people at home, work and at Universities. At #5 on the list is Google with 55M unique visitors and at #6 is Terra Lycos with 52M. Way down the list is Overture with 16M. This is important in that Ugone argues a comparison to the Google settlement with Overture, which was estimated at $291-365M based on 2.71M shares, is somehow irrelevant. The competitive equivalency between Google and Lycos (its parent) at the time of the hypothetical negotiation is quite relevant. This testimony a shaky Dr. Ugone though not quite as bad as Ungar. Sherwood did a good job linking Ugone to Ungar and further showing that both seem to be spoon fed much of their stories by Google. What amazes me is the lack of true due diligence related to this case that Google's expert witnesses appeared to have done or even admitted to doing. This serves only to further support the theory that they are following Google's talking points. Google's counsel Robert Wilson did a decent job trying to rehabilitate Ugone but he repeatedly led the witness in his questioning and was reprimanded several times by Judge Jackson. 2 users liked this posts 0 users disliked this posts Reply Ignore User

Report Abuse Re: Re: Update, October 30 By edvacourt . 31 minutes ago . Permalink Go to topic

Several big points by VRNG counsel Sherwood...

1. Sherwood establishes that Dr. Ugone has never negotiated a patent license 2. When Ugone has testified as an expert witness for a Plaintiff he has always recommended a running royalty rate but fails to do so in this case. 3. Ugone testifies that he is not technically astute and took most of his conclusions on the patent technology directly from Dr. Ungar. 4. Ugone agrees that a running royalty=rate X base but instead has arrived at his argument using representative transactions where he claims the parties somehow understood the value of the Lang patents. Actual testimony discussed below shows this to ignore reality. Sherwood points out that the GA Pacific method has many more areas that must be vetted before making a damages assumption including the value of the technology to Google. 5. Sherwood establishes that Ugone has done no analysis of the use of the patents in suit by the defendants. This morning Ugone said the damages by Ungar were to high but Sherwood is able to essentially have Ugone agree that he offers no royalty rate calculation or calculation of base. 6. Ugone made a statement Friday that Google had to supplement the technology of the 664 and 420 patents in order to make them useful though he is shown to have no evidence to support that. He has also testified that he is not an expert on the technology and was getting that information from others, chiefly Ungar. 9 users liked this posts 0 users disliked this posts Reply Ignore User

Report Abuse Update, October 30 By edvacourt . 56 minutes ago . Permalink

One last try here...if I didn't know better I'd say yahoo was in on some anti-NPE pact with Google!

Part 1: Dr. Ugone testified today that Dr. Becker's report did three things which should disqualify it. It overstated the claimed royalty rate. Second, it overstated the royalty base and third, the damages failed the reasonableness test. To substantiate his points he cites Lycos being sold for $95M in 2004, the 2008 purchase by Google of the Carl Meyer Patents for $3.55M and the fact that Lang bought his own patents back in 2011 for $3.2M. In short Ugone bases his argument on a series of inferences that look quite shaky under cross exam. Vringo counsel (Sherwood) does a good job of taking the jury through Ugone's history as an expert witness, over 200 cases in all and numerous times testifying at the behest of Google. In this case alone Sherwood estimates Ugone's fees to be roughly $310,000 which Ugone does not dispute. Sherwood also states that of Ugone's 5-6 published works, three of them are about how to provide expert testimony. 95% of Ugone's work we hear is expert testimony.


No comments:

Post a Comment