I think a part of what Ronran posted is called a nonsequitur.

<In the vast majority of those cases, the ultimate number has been within the range of fairness, which means there is no winner or loser, only that the amount paid is a fair reflection of the risk involved >

So If TPL received a fair amount for the licenses, that would not make them a winner?  Why doesn't that make sense to me?  I know, I know, we still don't know for sure who won.  And it would be wrong to consider the vast majority of cases?

I think Ron's view of not assuming anything is a correct one for an attorney with his profession.  Whether that view is a correct one for an investor can be debated.  If you want absolute confidence in your investment, then buy US Gov't bonds. If you want to maximize your return, then you take some risk and make reasonable assumptions.  Most here believe a TPL win is a reasonable assumption.  If Ron does not share that bellief, he has not provided any clues as to why he doesn't, and I wish he would.     All IMHO   Opty