My attitude remains unchanged from the thoughts I shared last night under this subject line. Even after the letter, I'm convinced that we have not yet realized the money from the Js settlement, and perhaps other license agreements since.

Analyzing the wording of the letter, and what was addressed, still IMO suggests that these monies await another event before they will be paid. My guess is an USPTO event.

Why do I still think this? In spite of the words "....fully reflects the financial results of all transactions announced prior to the end of January 2008". "January" was an obvious error - should be February. People seem to be jumping all over the word "fully", when IMO the key words are "financial results". If there hasn't yet been a "financial result", then the associated numbers won't/don't appear.

The other thing that strikes me is the follow-on paragraph, talking about license agreements being confidential, but here I believe the key words are "unique" and "other considerations". I'll admit that I believed all along that the license agreements were more-or-less boiler-plate. Basically a "give us X amount of money and you can use our tech". I'm sure there were some standard caveats in there, like "if the patentee acquires another business entity that infringes, this license is NOT grandfathered....". But I thought they were all basically the same - right up until this week, when it appears obvious that the J settlement numbers have not yet been realized (nor, perhaps, fees from other recent licensees). I addressed this last night - a licensing policy change where fees are contingent on validation. This also explains the flurry of new licensees since late December, IMO (I elaborated more last night, along with identifying possible other clues).

But this paragraph seems to be trying, in a roundabout way, to be telling us something beyond the confidentiality. It talks of uniqueness and "other considerations" (e.g., perhaps, USPTO actions).

Now I'll throw in another possible hint that was given in December, which we may have taken totally the wrong way. Remember the "Material Event" controversy? They disclosed the fact that the litigation had settled, but refused to mention dollar amounts because they were not "material". I'm now thinking that they were successful in that argument because the associated monies had not yet been received, and wouldn't be received by any date certain.

So, my attitude is unchanged. IMO, same basic situation, but with a longer wait. Keep in mind that we have no idea what USPTO event might be the, or one of several, triggers (if there are any). Survival of any one patent? Descrete amounts for each? What I'm suggesting here is that if there's anything to all this conjecture, the wait may not be as long as some might suspect - at least for partial payment.

All JMHO, and I'm still delusional.

SDE