But to belabor the point I'm trying to make, if you have to have both components - both being essential - and one becomes free, how does that change the value of the one owned component (as opposed to ownership of both)? You have to have both. The value of the one should be virtually the same as the value of the both. The free one doesn't work too well without the pricey one.

Going a step farther, going back to talking more directly about the patents ('148 and '336), it's not like the infringer would have to pay a second party for the use of the other (free) patent. The value to us is not reduced by the infringer having to also pay someone else in order to combine the technologies. The value is in the full function, both patents incorporated. If one patent dies a miserable death, you still cannot enjoy the desired full function without the valid patent.

The value is the functionality. THAT's what they're paying for.

JMHO,

SGE