I see two major flaws in "the argument".

One has already been identified and addressed. That being his supposed "insider information" disclosed to him by his "sources". Ya know, I was recent chastized for suggesting that perhaps PTSC is not fully aware of the content of the settlement with the Js. The "accuser" jumping to the conclusion that PTSC management was not living up to their fiduciary duty, and should therefore be "excused". IF a member of PTSC management DID share priviledged info with one investor or any outsider, would they not have lived up to their fiduciary duty, as well as their legal duty in light of the Confidentiality Clause? Would this not end any credibility/integrity that PTSC (and TPL) may have previously enjoyed?

Then there is the other, more subtle flaw in Ron's reasoning (from a lawyer with all those years of experience).

I'll use his Texas Hold'em analogy to make the point. You're playing heads up, and are dealt suited connectors. The flop brings two same-suited cards (four to a flush), as well as an open-ended straight draw. Your opponent checks. What do you do? Fold?

What I'm getting at is the concept of "outs". He speaks of the jury having the ability to determine validity and infringement (or degree of infringement). Infringement "is what it is", and could be determined, via compelling testimony, by a jury. But validity? Sure, they could make a "determination" on this as well.

Could that jury "determination" be overturned via Appeal?

Would that "determination" trump a determination by the USPTO?

Could that USPTO determination be appealled?

The answer to all of those is "yes". There were multiple "outs". Yet he suggests we folded. A lawyer who can't recognize the "outs"?

"Now move forward a bit in time with respect to the
litigation. The trial is getting closer, legal fees (part of
your "bet") are mounting, and the PTO doesn't appear to be close to
ruling ? do you risk a Forgent-type result, or do you "retreat
and live to fight another day"?"

"Retreat to fight another day"? Why retreat? You can fight, lose, and still fight another day! Is there the assumption that we're all idiots when proclaiming this "reality"? Insulting....

The killer IMO is that Ease buys into this non-sense. I suspect Ease still has me on ignore, which is a shame, because the ONLY way I'd buy Ron's "absolute" scenario is if Ease were to tell us that his EE expert, with over 20 years of direct experience in the field, and who happens to be his father I believe, is completely wrong and that there is no chance that the '336 is a valid patent, nor the '148. This would eliminate the "outs" to a large degree.

Ron speaks as if the litigation with the Js was an "all in" situation, and we were dealt a non-suited 7 and 2, and the opponent has revealed a pair of aces. Virtually no outs unless we got extremely lucky. This was clearly, IMO, not the case. That is unless, of course, Ease were to post that his expert is 100% wrong.

Make of this observation as you wish. After all, I have no experience in such matters, know nuttin', don't have insider (illegal) info, and don't have the capability to think (though my IQ has tested out at 155).

And I'll "hide behind" my "JMHO".

SGE

PS: I'd appreciate it if someone, not on Ease's ignore list, would repost and gain his attention. TIA