"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."

The problem I have with your thoughts, once again you are of the personal belief that explaining the technology and selling that to a jury would be a slam dunk. I am of the opinion that what other posters are selling is starting to make more sense. Do you really want to chance your patents being invalidated by a group of lay people? Because Despain put up convincing arguements can you feel 100% positive that message will come across to a jury? If you had a positive Markman in hand and a newly revalidated set of patents wouldn't you feel much better about risking it all? I understand completely what your saying I'm just not convinced anymore that is what occured.

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

For the very reason it's helped all along, we are still collecting fees correct? You were of the opinion that the RIMM license was a watershed event. If they paid $5-$20 million is that a failure? Why would they have paid at all if the patents are worthless. My point is simple, the patents have value. It may not be the kind of value investors hoped for but none the less they are extracting millions of dollars with them. When an attorney says the patents are a, "litigators dream", does that automically mean absurd amounts of money? I could easily take it at face value. You have patents that are clearly worth some kind of monetary value. I would say based on a long historical trail of licenses we now have, the range of dollars that falls within, have been established. I can be plenty happy if they continue to collect licenses worth $5 - $20 million each. How long will investors continue to try and explain away every license just because they are of the opinion the dollars are to low? How can any of us determine that which we have no access to? The point of the suit was to extract value from a group of companies that didn't want to pay. At the end of the day those companies decided, and TPL accepted, a resolution to settle. Wasn't our goal achieved? The opposition decided to pay, correct? It would appear that precedent has more or less been set. The licenses seem to fetch somewhere between $5 and $25 million, on average, based upon some kind of metrics. I'm not sure how anyone could call that peanuts.