It's 1933, the height of the Great Depression, and there's a tattered-looking fella on the street corner selling apples. Price: $500 each. A prospective customer approaches, sees the price, and says "Just how many apples do you expect to sell for $500?". The fella replies "I only need to sell one".

I may be totally wrong (corrections very welcomed), but it seems to me we're on a similar street corner. For the defense to remain vulnerable, we really only need a clear "win" on one issue; not all, not most, just one. While it is very probable that "loses" would impact the value of the ultimate award should we prevail on less than all, the defense (J2.5/ARM) remains "on the hook" for a large amount of money. So in my clearly ignorant opinion, unless we are a clear loser on every single issue, we're still in a commanding position, and the defense would still be compelled to settle. It's not us that will be paying any money, it's them. Again, unless we are a clear loser on every single issue, the only variable is the "how much".

Assuming my conclusions are correct, there should be very little to "worry about", as I would find it difficult to believe that we could possibly lose on every single issue. Could happen, but.....

I hope J Ward is aware of the Nokia settlement, and the fact that they (exclusively?) use ARM chipsets. I cannot see where he would not be influenced (at least subconciously) by this. And I suspect that he has been made aware by virtue of what Cook said in that recent filing re: providing correspondence between TPL and all infringers, including ARM licensees. I tried to prompt some discussion of this when the filing was posted, but to no avail.... (and I tried twice).

Just my thoughts, and I KNOW nuttin'!

SGE