TPL did not want to risk going into the gun fight holding a knife knowing darn well that in a few weeks they may be able to trade the knife for a double shotgun.

As current holders of valid patents, I humbly suggest that TPL were going into the gun fight with M1 Abrams. It was for the defence to convince the jury as to invalidity, not TPL to show validity. Prior art was their weapon of choice. Despain has evaluated this and concluded the cited material was, to paraphrase, apples and pineapples. I'm positive that between them, Cook and Despain, could have reduced the defence arguments to plain, understandable, English that even a 6th grader could comprehend, and then by analogy, showed how the so-called prior art confused the MMP's apples by trying to use pineapples because they sounded the same.

I'm as dissappointed as anyone but to continue making up all these theories to fit your hope/belief is silly. Has anyone ever thought that perhaps the company is still engaged in a strategic war of words? The word play may be less about keeping investors guessing and more about keeping the opponent guessing. The end goal is to continue generating new licenses, correct?

One question, If the opponents are guessing that the Texas settlement was for peanuts, how will that help in obtaining new licensees?

Be well