Thank you for your reply. My response and added clarity (as such is often lost in written communication, e.g., my "begging your pardon" was not meant as sarcasim or a "shot", more just a plea).

2. What I was trying to get acrossed was that, in contrast to your "Alliacense does NOT license individual patents from within the portfolio", nothing prevents them from doing so IMO. Thus, more to the point, anything going on (or not) on the '584 is not an impediment to a settlement with the Js IMO. Yes, they could, through settlement, license the entire MMP (though the need for the '584 would certainly be questionable to them at this point). They could also merely license the '148 and '336 only, as those are the only patents they are currently accused of infringing. On the surface (whether it's reality or not), it would seem they could negotiate a (perceived) better price for 2 patents than the presumeable cost for 7 (five of which they probably feel they don't even need, and never will). I see no way anything having to do with the '584 is an impediment or difficulty toward achieving a settlement with the Js.

3. Okay, here it appears you're talking litigation, where I'm talking licenses. It seems ARM didn't have a problem while Sony was part of the litigation, nor Fujitsu, nor part of NEC, as the timing of their entrance to the fray was AFTER they had settled/licensed (though not NEC I believe). Perhaps the timing of their entry was planned (strategically), but, none-the-less, they sat back and watched them (two of their big customers, I believe) settle/license. Likewise, I suspect better than half of our other licensees were ARM customers. So, I'm talking licenses, you're apparently talking litigation.

Now, to take this a step farther, how many infringers do you think will pursue the litigation route after we either get respectable settlements from the Js (indirectly validating the patents)? If we end up in court with the Js, and prevail, how many? I may be being very naive, but IMO the likelihood of litigation with other infringers subsequent to our prevailing in the instant litigation, one way or the other, is minimal at best. Also keep in mind that TPL's preferred avenue is licensing, not litigation. So, again, currently the '584 is a "flash in the pan", so why not exclude it from the MMP (at least temporarily) - since they can't honestly "sell" it right now anyway - and come back with the '584 after things are resolved (in our favor) at the USPTO? The other thing that brings sense to this is that, IMO, the '584 is so broad in scope and all-encompassing, it's almost a "different animal" anyway.

4. Here, you're beginning to confuse me. If the "good faith purchase" held any water, there would never be a need for inclusion of patent indemnification clauses in contracts, and the words "caveat emptor"/"buyer beware" would never be uttered. Sans the clause, the ARM customer has no remedy IMO, other than to cease doing business with ARM. ARM might "care" enough about the loss of business to step in, but certainly would not be legally obligated. At least this is my understanding.

Bottom line is that I do understand that the intent of TPL is to "sell" licenses for the entire MMP. However, I cannot believe that altering this desire is impossible if one of the patents ('584) is problematic, or if there is a possibility of further capitalizing on that one patent at a later date.

Here please note what our team has done in TX with regard to the '584. Also note that the litigation in TX never involved four of the seven patents; only three. I understand that it's a "package" concept, but it's only a concept (not a rule to which they are bound).

It also possible we're just talking around eachother and saying essentially the same thing on most of this. Wouldn't be the first time!

Here again, I emphasize that I'm not trying to be argumentative in a negative way, but more pursuing this as a discussion toward deeper understanding. If you find I've belabored this too much and choose not to respond, I'll certainly understand. Not that I want the "last word" or won't entertain further discussion, more that I've probably expended the better part of an hour on this message (worth it?). Even if you were to reply with a simple "nope, you're wrong SGE", I could deal with it..... I do appreciate your time, and further discussion may not be "worthy".

I'm just throwing out my opinions and things I think I know. And the latter could easily be my folly...

'Cuz I KNOW nuttin'!

SGE