What I find humorous is when I read things like:

"Goerner broke the news re: the J settlement on April 9 and 10. It's just that no one wanted to take his words at face value, preferring twisted and tortured reasoning, instead."

So what's so funny? Well, IMO, EVERYONE HERE has acknowldged the high probability that it's true, we've gotten all we're going to get out of the Js. We recognize this. It's understood.

What's weird is the language used. Through January? Just weird stuff like that, along with all the other weirdnesses. And there are many - unexplained (at least not anywhere near to my satisfaction).

What's also weird, extremely weird, is that the strongest advocates of this position (nothing more from the Js) say things to support their position that, IMO, make very little sense. The MOU non-sense. This non-sense about our team backing down because the litigation in TX was supposedly a "win all/lose all" situation, when everyone here knows it was wasn't - there were readily available potential remedies - "outs" - if needed.

Again, (though I suppose I should only speak for myself) IMO most everyone here acknowledges the probable reality that there is nothing more coming from the Js. That doesn't mean we still can't discuss the many weirdnesses that have transpired, or possible explanations for those weirdnesses with a big "IMO" attached. Why not?

But these posts from another board pop in, presenting the ultimate weirdness. It seems "they" want to end this discussion and for everyone to fully accept their position - which most if not all IMO already believe is probably correct. But the mere fact that they bring it up and rub our noses in it just re-generates the discussion they want to end. It raises suspicions and points to the weirdnesses (Why did we settle for peanuts? Do or Die? But that's not true, and the writer knows it!). Especially when they say things that, to me at least, don't make a whole lot of sense, and insist that it's "exactly correct".

I'm sorry, but I do find it humorous. Unintended reverse psychology? Or (just to trip you out) intended?

So, if we (IMO) believe there is nothing more coming from the Js, why are we here? USPTO. One aspect of the "continency theory", in a bit different context, is very most likely correct. Many potential licensees are probably watching for these results just like we are. Their "signing on the dotted line" may be contingent on re-validation of the patents. And TPL may be sandbagging if the PTO results are imminent. And with re-validation, TPL should be poised to play more "hard ball".

JMHOs, but I KNOW nuttin', and have a very open mind to logical explanations for weirdnesses. And I admit that I still hold out hope for the Js contingency theory, if only because to my way of thinking, it's the only thing that does explain away most of the weirdnesses.

SGE