First, Oscar, We are in sync re: timeframe for us to KNOW something - actually a great deal more than we KNOW today. Mid-Oct. If nothing else, by that time we should have a pretty good feel as to whether we'll be in the court room in Jan'08 (i.e., whether a settlement is pressed/forthcoming).

Now, Borredo, while I can certainly sympathize with your emotion on where we're at, it, IMO, isn't nearly as bad as you describe. Yes, it appears we're mired in a jungle of "unknown" and mountains of undecypherable legal BS. But take that apart. We KNOW who our "enemies" are, what our threats are. The enemy is the Js (our own little axis of evil). The threat hanging is the USPTO.

So while we may be in a seeming jungle, we do know what to look out for - and we are watching diligently. We also have a degree of shelter in that we do have a lot going for us - perhaps everything going for us some might argue.

Now going alittle deeper... Kaos has advised that all these motions are nothing to get too excited about. It's standard procedure. They are compelled to "machinegun" the court at this point. Many of the rounds fired are obvious blanks, some mere tracers, and some may actually be viable arguments (but look closely). They have to do this for the reason he stated: to make every possible agrument available when/if they get to court. If they fail to raise an issue NOW, it won't be available THEN. Of course there's also the strategic objective of placing enormous demands on our legal team to counter each proposed argument. But recognize that, as I believe Kaos was trying to convey, that this is 90% pure BS. And the court will recognize it as such (he even suggested that the content of some motions may not receive any real attention from the court until they/JW is obliged).

But at the end of the day, we have the Markman results in our hip pocket. That removed (IMO) the Js' most viable potential arguments - they're gone.

So they have to hang their hat on BS which, when fully considered, IMO is just that. Patent ownership is a dead issue. How, at this point, could anyone effectively prove that Fish/Moore were not closely collaborating on each and every patent? Remember they were originally applied for as a batch - clearly the intent was for these innovations to work together as a package. How do you have two people putting together an carefully integrated package without close collaboration? I would say that's pretty much impossible. And things like the Fish/Higgins letter combined with "Fish was a marketing guy" defies any reasonable thought (unless naming the '336 the "Fish Clock" was some elaborate marketing ploy - I think not! LOL).

Supposed statements/thoughts of Shaw. So what? The proof is in the pudding. The patents were maintained, and with the blessing of the USPTO. He thought the thing wouldn't work. It did, and apparently others had it working at the time (before most likely) he said/thought such things. Credibility? More like "Here's your sign".

I have not recognized a single viable argument, though I acknowledge that I might not recognize a viable argument if I tripped over it.

And as far as the USPTO is concerned, I believe we have much more strength there than some may think. Does anyone think these guys enjoy the thought of reversing a prior decision, especially when this is now a pretty high-profile case and while the patent system is being scrutinized? Also, even if a re-exam is ordered, it'll be our guys alone with the USPTO performing that re-exam (and they've had how many months to prepare?). So while a re-exam will not be welcome, it's not done till it's done.

So while we may feel lost in a jungle (do primarily to information overload - exactly the objective of the Js), we do have shelter till the clouds clear and we find our compass. We're all feeling the "emotional drag" I suspect. I KNOW it's affecting me (I want to quit smoking, but there is absolutely no friggin' way that's going to happen till things with PTSC are more resolved - I'm over-invested and KNOW IT, and time is NOT on my side).

Finally, think about what Turley is saying (bringing this down to PTSC). I'm not hearing anything I don't like, and PTSC isn't doing anything I don't like. Some are yelling "giddy up" on M&A. But I like them taking time to consider and for the coffers to swell (i.e., minimizing risk). Warrants. Dividends. Really good stuff which, if they weren't being handled the way they are, would be a source of much more significant stress. Just think how we'd feel if they issued more warrants (with repricing) to obtain cash for a huge dividend? The words "freak out" come to mind! What if they bought out a company with questionable potential and wiped out the coffers, and then some? Not as bad, but still very worrisome. But good, smart things are in the works, not stupid or risky things. At least that's my perception.

Well, time to end today's novel..... This I KNOW. The rest of the above I think I KNOW.

SGE