This hits on my conjecture post of the other day.

- We have this NDA with the Js.

- We have this new litigation being initiated by the T3 (presumeably because, over the 14 months of negotiations, they can't settle on a license cost figure because we're asking, in their opinion, way too much without justification).

- We advise the Js that their DIRECT COMPETITORs are refusing to pay (placing the T3 at an at least temporary business advantage), all because of lack of justification resulting from lack of visibility regarding recent license values, i.e., because of the NDAs/CC.

What would be the smart thing to do?

IMO, permit the T3 to see the numbers from the J3 settlements, under a new NDA with the T3, thus justifying our license number after adjustments re: infringing product volume, etc., and an added premium for foot-dragging.

I hope my perceived (by me anyway) wisdom is shared by our team, and that they are pursuing this. Possible result: we get a fat set of new licenses, the T3 get a license at a "fair and reasonable" cost, and the J3 realize their desired competitive advantage (or a least parody).

Maybe pursuit of this approach is what is causing our team to hold off on filing countersuits or for change of venue. Such would be wasted effort/expense if the above approach panned out.

JMHOs, and I KNOW nuttin'!

Apologies for the positive thoughts, as I KNOW it causes at least 21 people here some significant distress.

SGE