What does any of what have to do with what Shawn, the prior post was a claim by the poster that these folks are just looking to take advantage of Google since they are going public and are "so called successful" and now are a target.
Never said that, just pointed out the business "jungle". I'm sure some companies have vialbe reasons as to why sue Google but you dont think they get handed lawsuits left and right from other companies that are looking to capitalize on Google's profit?? Company I work for makes a fraction of what Google makes and we still get companies contacting us because we have a section on the site named "Ireland Travel" so we owe them lost revenue. If companies really want to protect their identity they need to sue the advertisers that are break the trademark not the advertising provider because all that's saying is "Go ahead and use our trademark we'll just go after Google". Most of the sites that buy trademarked terms have nothing to lose and I cant see how these lawsuits are preventing this practice.
I'm still curious why you think Google will lose this one? How do you know they broke any sort of contract unless you have actually seen it?
Shawn, did you read the second article that I posted from News.com Did you review the patent link I left for you?
Yeah... and does not say anything about why they are going to loose. Only that Google countersued because Digital Envoy filed their lawsuit in the wrong state.
Shawn, I am not the Judge, but you look at it, does Google really have any choice but to settle? They are using this companies patent to run their entire advertising platform, 95% of their profits depend on this technology. Do they have any choice, how do you feel they will win, that is the question? Did you read the patent awarded just yesterday or not?
Settling is not the same as loosing. From the looks of it, it looks like Digital Envoy is greedy, not that Google "takes what they want from people". Google even offered to increase their licensing fees by 50%. Which seems pretty nice to me considering that was not part of their obligation. I can't imagine many other companies offering to do something like that. I'm not going to pay 50% more for something I already pay for just because I use it to make money. If I were Google I would not even settle with Digital Envoy out of principle, and simply use a different geotargetting provider. Or develop my own geotargetting technology. I would also close my offer to voluntarily increase the licensing fees.
Shawn, this is the real world, if Google generates Billions in sales in contextual advertising and uses this platform to help generate these profits, don't you think that $8,000.00 a month is an insult to Digital Envoy? Google was only to use this technology on the Google search site, but they, without permission extended it to third party sites like yours. So they are up _______ creek without a paddel on this, just like they are with the trademark and the Overture lawsuits. Maybe Google will just reduce payouts to publishers like yourself to cover this. That is the way it always happens.
It's not about how much Google makes on the technology, it's about the fact that Digital Envoy licensed the technology for a certain price, and now they want more because Google uses it to make money. Imagine if Microsoft decided it was going to target companies that were profitable and then tell them, "Okay, I know you paid for Windows, but now we want more. You make $10,000,000/year and I'm insulted that you are only going to give us what we asked for originally for Windows." The whole thing is stupid if you ask me. If Digital Envoy is insulted by $8k/month, then maybe they should not have licensed it for that to begin with. How do you know this, have you seen the contract? Without actually seeing the contract, this is my guess: At the time they licensed it, Google only did search, and now Digital Envoy is pissed off because they didn't specify in their contract at the time that Google could only use it for search.
That must be in the contract Shawn, since Digital Envoy brought that point up, wouldn't you say? Damm well if you wrote the program and owned the patent and Google went outside of your terms and used your software outside of the terms you would be wanting your 300 million also, plus future royalties. Shawn you and I can discuss this, but we are not the lawyers or the Judge, so we will have to keep watching all of these lawsuits, remember this is not the only technology lawsuit that is important for your readers to understand. Maybe you should start a subject heading on these and put them all there so your members can find them all. I must go unload a truck (really do some work for once), so I will let the forum discuss this, I am sure you all will make it without me. I will check in tonight, see you all later, have fun, fight the good fight and don't let Shawn scare you members.
You shouldn't take what people (or companies) say as the word of God. If Digital Envoy "feels" that Google violated their contract, I would say that's coming from a biased source. Contract interpretation can be construed one way or the other depending on who is reading it. I'm not ready to proclaim who is right or wrong in my mind without seeing the actual contract. And I'm surely not ready to to say that Google is surely going to loose.
All that matters is this. Are the computers that the software runs on licensed to run this software? In most cases this is all that matters. This is all very bad press for the Digital Envoy. I for one would never choose to use them after reading this article. Google even offered to pay them 12k instead of 8. $144,000 a year is a nice chunk of change considering Google's use of this service doesn't cost them nearly that amount. I would also suspect that Google is developing their own version of this.
Actually, Digital Envoy specifically says it NOT a contract dispute when they were questioned about why the suit was filed in Georgia. If it was a contract dispute it would have to be filed in California. Instead, Digital Envoy claims it's "unfair business practices and misuse of technology". I'm no lawyer, but it doesn't look too promising for Digital Envoy. Because of the state they filed it in, they can't say there was any sort of breach of contract. Digital Envoy's claim of unfair business practices and misuse of technology really sounds like it's what I had originally thought... that Digital Envoy is simply pissed off at themselves for licensing their technology for what they now consider as being too cheap. Now imagine if Microsoft started suing people who bought Windows for "unfair business practices and misuse of technology". They would be laughed out of court.
Shawn you are in the software business, if I am contracted to use your software for limited business applications (for example to bill customers in Ohio only), then I use it to bill customers worldwide, I have violated my contract with you, PERIOD. That is what Google did when they took the technology and extended it to the second or third party sites (ADSENSE PUBLISHERS) or whatever you want to call them. If they get triple damages the award could by a hell of a lot of money, what is 30% of 1.5 billion? If they win even 10% royalty, add triple damages and what is your number? ThinkBling, Digital Envoy has got a Worldwide name now that they filed this, you think those guy are dummies, you better think again. They can take this technology and sell it to all of Google's competition now can't they?
Right, except Digital Envoy has said it's not a contract/licensing dispute... which is why it was not filed in California.
Well that is not what I got out of reading the articles, looked like Google broke the contract to me. Maybe the damages are greater with the misuse of technology avenue, but that is for the lawyers to sort out. Google is just trying to drag it out as long as possible anyway. They will settle this with the proceeds from the IPO along with all of the other stuff. Money talks, they will just hold on to it as long as they can.
Like I said Shawn, maybe Digital Envoy wants to pursue that direction since they feel it favors them, why else would Google want it moved and considered a contract dispute. Lawyers think much different than you and I. Again maybe the damage awards are greater and future royalties could be awarded in a more favorable fashion to Digital Envoy by pushing a misuse of technology direction verses a contractual dispute.
Actually, Google wants it moved because it's a hassle to go to court in Georgia, rather than California. Just like it's a hassle for Digital Envoy to go to court in California. But by *not* going to court in California, Digital Envoy is giving up the ability to argue it's a contract dispute.