From PTSC's Feb 8, 2007 pr.

<Patriot Scientific Corporation (OTC Bulletin Board: PTSC) confirmed today that NEC Corporation has purchased a Moore Microprocessor Patent™ (MMP) Portfolio license. As the first global manufacturer to become an MMP Portfolio licensee in 2007, NEC closely follows in the footsteps of HP, Casio, Fujitsu, Sony, Nikon, Seiko Epson, Pentax, Olympus, Kenwood, Agilent, Lexmark and Schneider Electric, all 12 of whom purchased MMP licenses during 2006. 

"After several years of exhaustive study and negotiation, we are pleased with NEC’s decision to purchase an MMP Portfolio license," said Mac Leckrone, Alliacense president. "NEC becomes our inaugural MMP Portfolio licensee in 2007, as well as the first to capture a berth in the networking and communications industry segment." He noted that the MMP Portfolio licensees in this segment, as well as future licensees in segments where early tiers have been captured, are subject to progressively higher royalty rates. "We are especially pleased that NEC has chosen to become TPL’s program partner instead of continuing as a defendant with Matsushita and Toshiba, against whom TPL filed broad-based infringement claims about 15 months ago in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas." >

 From TPL's Dec 18, 2007 pr.

<The TPL Group and Patriot Scientific Corporation announced today that they have entered into a business resolution of their legal disputes with NEC Electronics America in two patent infringement lawsuits pending in the US District Courts in the Eastern District of Texas and the Northern District of California. The terms of their settlement include the grant by the TPL Group of rights under the Moore Microprocessor Patent Portfolio to NEC Electronics Corporation and its subsidiaries. The parties have agreed that the details of the settlement are confidential. All parties are pleased with the business resolution of their dispute and will be voluntarily dismissing their Texas and California lawsuits.>

Certainly appears that the latest pr must have been a generic created to satisfy all the defendants if/when agreement on $ is obtained.  I can not believe NECE America would have demanded this wording in light of the Feb pr covering NEC Corp.  Then I ask, why separate prs only minutes apart, which are worded exactly the same?  Could the NECEA pr have already gone public, when the other 2 defendants agreed to accept TPL's $ demands. Is there another logical reason?  If I'm right, then those separate prs could be telling us something very important with respect to who was holding the high ground in the negotiations and who caved.   

Rationale for Js caving is fairly clear to me.  They didn't have much to go to trial with as far as defenses against the claims.  But most importantly, if more defendants settled than went to court, (no matter if recaptioned), and I was on the jury and knew that info, the burden of proof would shift to the defendants. You are guilty unless you can prove to me you aren't.  Who would not think that way? With NEC settling, the other defendants had little choice.  All IMHO and sorry about the length of post.  Opty