There's sort of a trap there when one does that, I guarantee you that the more opinions you "pay' for the more varied responses you will get...the less you get the more chance you have for a one sided opinion...either way. Just simple odds and probability.

I mean what do you do if you get 3 thumbs up and 2 thumbs down or vice versa..do you say that we have a 60% chance of getting it or 2 out of 3 and get a 66% of passage probability...do you make that public to other than those who might chip in for the cost..or do you keep it amongst those who "paid" for the opinion and let them take advantage of an "opinion" before anyone else does...it's a sticky situation.

Then add on to that, that the premise that of the majority could be wrong...all wrong...do you tell people that the probability looks good and then when many buy based on that assumption and we lose the reexams what happens to those lost dollars that many holders could lose when the stock bottomed with news like that.

It's all a hypothetical I realize, but I for one wouldn't want that to be on my head for maybe leading people the wrong way...good or bad.

Now after all of that preaching,( sorry for the soapbox) if you really want a good handle on the siuation we can get a good lead for free...and its right in our own backyard. it's our Q and K and RG's letters. note none of them have menttioend the reexam process or what we paln to do or how we plan to vigorously defend them to their fullest, or that we believe we have the right story to tell to keep our claims intact...other compnaies do that. they annoucne the rexam process the incidents of non fianl actions and their plan to viogourously defend them up and to the appeal process...

for example...I deleted names of the CEO and company for privacy reasons and substituted ABC and XYZ where needed and deleted a sentence or two...but the remainder is an actual PR and was repeated in company Q's and k's and proxies and shareholder year end reports..BTW the company was successful in getting their patents reexamined positively with added new claims too.

This is what I'd like to read in one of RG's letters and maybe more so in the k or it's PR following it.

Reading this would mean more to me than a paid for opinion of someone not nearly as close to the issue as our own leadership is.

JMHO

ABC company which previously announced that it was in a reexamination proceeding with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office on its first issued patent, today announced that the Company has received another preliminary office action from the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. The office action is another preliminary rejection of the previously issued claims covering XYZ claims. Such action relates solely to the first patent covering claim X and is not a final decision by the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. The Company will have an opportunity to respond to the office action prior to any final action by the patent office.

"As we have stated previously, given the broad scope of our first patent, we expected a challenge and we are engaging in a vigorous defense of the previously issued claims. Further, while we hope the issues can be resolved in a favorable manner in the reexamination process, we intend to appeal any final decision that attempts to substantially limit our rights granted under the patent," stated ABC Company CEO.

The Company has other patents and has other patent applications pending. "We find it difficult to be patient considering the length of time the reexamination has taken, but we are doing everything in our power to move the process along,"

Signed

ABC Company CEO