I don't disagree at all. I believe signing RIMM is a substantial step in lieu of their past attitude toward licensing and propensity to litigate. Talking with my relative only reinforced my thought regarding how many of the companies are probably reacting upon notification. Alliacense will be forced to prove to each and every one of them, yes you are infringing. I don't think anyone would argue that having a positive re-exam result in their hand would most certainly add validity and discourage potential infringers from challenging the patents.

Many here are speculating that there's more than meets the eye on the J3 settlement. If so, what could it be other than the USPTO outcome? I believe it really hinges on the first patent challenged, the 148. If the PTO reaffirms it's validity, I think most sitting on the sidelines will come on board. At that point they will have a pretty good idea of how the PTO is working with TPL and little reason to fight. I'm just not sure I agree the RIMM signing is a Watershed Event. We have numerous companies in our portfolio that are more than happy to litigate when challenged. I understand what your getting at and hope your right but I will remain a Doubting Thomas until proven otherwise. I certainly see the value of them signing but you don't have to convince me. The challenge is to convince all those skeptical investors who just viewed, in their minds, a less than stellar Q based solely on the idea that license values are increasing. If it's a matter of sharing the USPTO material with other patent lawyers how would you explain the low settlements? More importantly how would you explain the implication from our CEO that what you see is what you get? Trust me I hope like hell your correct, I'm just mentally preparing myself for the fact that my cash may be tied up for a while.