I'm back a few pages, catching up, but I'll throw this thought out re: whether the settlement with the Js included ongoing royalty payments.

IMO, No - just a (big fat) one-time payment(s). Why? Here's how I reason it out:

Rememeber the words "without prejudice" on the defendant/J side of the equation? This strongly suggests to me that it was a one-time payment from each. They paid extra for inclusion of the word "without". It provides a possible escape if, for instance, the USPTO determined the patents to be invalid for any reason.

Now, if there was an ongoing royalty payment scheme, they have an automatic escape, i.e., "Patents invalid? Stop paying!". So why pay more or take something else off the table to get inclusion of that specific word?

One caveat to this thought process is that I recognize the Js would have almost have to have paid a lump sum for past infringement - but not necessarily since this not a court imposed "damage". In past licensing, we KNOW that our team has "forgiven" past infringement all only sought payment for future contemplated infringement.

So, inclusion of the word "without" prejudice to me reveals the nature of the settlement/license.

Here I've suggested that the Js essentially paid more for inclusion of that word (and, BTW, our team woud not have permitted its inclusion under any circumstances if they thought there was any risk - at all).

Here I'll also suggest that the Js also paid a lot more for the "Confidentiality Clause". I mean, really, you gotta believe that TPL (along with PTSC) wanted to shout about this success from the rooftops. But there was a price for the silence.

Now, when I say "price" for our yielding on these things, I'll have to squelch possible enthusiasum by suggesting that the "price" was making the deal. It may have been what it took to get the deal done, regardless of the dollars involved.

But to conclude this little argument with myself, I'll again suggest that the Js may have paid a lot more than most people think. You'd think that things like an escape clause ("without") and a Confidentiality Clause would NOT be much of an issue, or an issue at all, if they settled for anywhere near what Fujitsu paid. This, IMO, strongly implies a much heavier price was paid, and hence the desire for a possible escape, and the desire (evidently strong) for silence due to embarrassment and shame.

I'm hoping that with the coming 10Q (1/15/08), we'll get some forward-looking guidance, which may reveal the amounts, which will be somewhat "hidden" through inclusion with all other settlements done or pending (with confidence).

And now that I've turned this into another friggin' novel, I'll suggest that we may see several more licensees over the next few weeks. I think this not only because of the end of formal litigation and what that implies, but also to further disguise the "J Numbers" if any forward-looking guidance comes with the 10Q.

Are people hearing me? IMO, we may not have to wait till April to get a clue on the J Numbers! Providing forward looking guidance is very commonplace, and I believe we've seen it from PTSC in previous reporting (now I'll have to go look!).

But I KNOW nuttin'!

SGE