I differ with Ease in that I don't think we settled for what was expressed in the recent 10Q. I think there is more to come. I felt for some time that validity was the isssue after the ACP issue was disposed of, TPL preferred to have the USPTO decide it for obvious reasons. I think the term "Granted" is the key. In other words, we have a temporary state which was paid for and reflected in the amount in the 10Q. I think more is to come, or maybe not, which will be determined by conditions met, or not met, in the MOU. They key is to watch the T3 case. Judge Ward is not going to allow TPL to shake them, or anyone one else, down while he is still over-seeing our settlement. I think we will start to see more transparency in future negoiations. Perhaps a Standardized way of charging infringers will come from our settlement with the J's. Perhaps we are ,as Virt asserted, counting chip infringement from the J's and this is part of the MOU. While that is happening the J's would have to be Granted rights to the MMP portfolio.

Also, it was the T3 that sued us, not the other way around. This is a key point, in that if they felt we settled for next to nothing, why bother? Why not just hold off and ignor us for as long as they could. I think the settlement numbers have increased, perhaps drastically, and they wanted to protect willful infringement going forward. It seems from their complaint, they realize they are infringeing, but are seeking transparancy in negoiations.They also are trying to avoid Judge Ward. Another point in our favor. If the the settlement with the J's was low why bother with that strategy. They want to litigate in California and use stall tactics and hope the out come will be different? No, because they have admitted infringement. The out come will be the same, only the settlement arrangement would, or could be different. Different from what a low settlement? I don't think so.

Also, if validity was not an issue. Why did the T3 consider California over Texas. They chose California's slow process to allow more time for the USPTO to consider the issue. It is the only chance infringers have. California may stay while awaiting the USPTO, Judge Ward will not. They all have to pay and are all trying to avoid it as long as possible. Certainly doesn't seem to be nuisance fees as the 10Q would have indicated.

JMO