Here's your education: "Irregardless" is not a word. As for everything else, keep it coming. Some here have an itchy trigger finger and with good cause after many, many past experiences. Don't let that stop your input. I appreciate your continued willingness to share.

Perhaps other avenues worthy of exploration would be your (and others') opinion of:

1) the strength of the original patent claims (from a word-smithing standpoint from a patent attorney's perch),

2) the "history" of the patent attorney who worked with Fish and Moore to develop the original, and then reworked/segregated, patent applications/claims, and

3) the comparative strengths of our counsel (T&T and TPL) versus the counsel engaged by our adversaries.

These are things that I don't believe have been addressed at all, and I suspect that you (and others) have the ability and resources to provide an assessment. And I further suspect that these "issues", when examined, may provide more insight than the current banter (i.e., if all three of the above "suck" from the PTSC perspective, or vice versa, nothing else much matters).

I still expect a ruling from Judge Ward sooner, rather than later (and wonder about those posters who insist on pushing out this event - those are the people that are much more "suspect", IMO, than APL, arguing "the complexity" - like no other patent disputes are "complex" ).

But I KNOW nuttin'!

SGE