Credibility? Unfair?

I hesitated to make this post, But, to me, "unfair" is to ignore/discount some 50 posts examining the prospect of a contingency deal with the Js and others while offering no counterarguments. Endless opportunities to agrue me down on each and every piece of evidence placed in your lap, and you (and the other 22 people who gave you a thumbs up) took a pass. Fair?

I recall only two people countering my arguments about one item - the MOU. One was Brian, who offered an explanation that was IMO pure nonsense - displaying complete ignorance of the purpose and intent of an MOU. The other was Ron, who said Brian was "exactly right", and then went on to offer a description and explanation that was completely in conflict with Brian's explanation. And how did Ron describe the purpose of an MOU? For contingency planning purposes (shazam!). However, the contingency he described was IMO nonsense, as it had to do with failure to make timely payment of settled amounts (within a week/10 days), a purpose that is covered by other means at the disposal of the court. The court, IMO, would have rejected such a thing, as it was unnecessary. No one else offered any plausible explanation. The only explanations "out there" were contingencies based on USPTO or Quanta/LG.

Credibility. You speak as though you've never worked in a classified invironment, or been made privy to sensitive Company Private/Proprietary information. Information labeled Company Private or Proprietary is typically handled, per my 20 years experience, simto SECRET information [all caps, because whenever that word is used in industry, it MUST be in all caps per DoD Directive 5220.20-M, "Industry Security Manual (for Safeguarding Classified Materials)]". If questioned about sensitive information that is classified, you first ascertain whether the person has proper clearance and a valid "need to know". If questioned about Company Private/Proprietary information, you ascertain whether the person is of the appropriate management level and has a valid need to know. If the person doesn't qualify you either deny knowledge, say it doesn't exist or advise that you are not at liberty to disclose. That's how the real world works.

So you mention credibility. What's more important, credibility with past/future portential customers, or with shareholders? Any information covered by an NDA or Confidentiality Clause would likely be labeled Company Private or Proprietary, and handled accordingly.

Now, what would happen if that information were disclosed to the public/shareholders? Past deals could be nixed, especially in the case of a contingency arrangement. They want it quiet for a reason. New customers would not trust us in making deals, severly hampering our negotiating ability. Credibility gone.

Credibility with shareholders? If the contingency triggering event never happens - no harm, no foul. If it does happen, the outcome(s) could easily be hidden to a large degree or completely. And, assuming a very positive result, who's going to complain, regardless?

What I'm saying here is that IMO the possibility exists. Nothing more, nothing less. It's certainly not an absolute YES. But it's certainly not an absolute NO, IMO. It's a possibility. And, in the company's position, even the possibility must be denied/negated, or it would consitute disclosure.

So, IMO, you are being unfair to those who merely accept the possibility. At some point, we will KNOW absolutely - one way or the other (though I shouldn't really say KNOW, but a sudden influx of very large amounts of cash would be a pretty solid clue). And if it comes to fruition, what would you have to say about the credibility of those who so firmly denied, even fought, the posibility? The only leg these folks have to stand on are the words of denial from the company, which is strongly compelled to deny by "the nature of the beast". No other legs? Well, again, there were very little in the form of counterarguments to my speculation. Virtually none. Months of time to argue constructively, many posts available to reply to, and practically nada.

Another novel that will likely fall on deaf ears. All those licensees. All those huge infringers. Businesses that are totally dependent on this technology (e.g., DTV). And so little money. Yup, that makes perfect sense. That is, of course, if TPL doesn't care about the money. That must be it.

Think of it this way: if the issue hampering our ability to negotiate licenses for significant money was a question of patent validity, why license to anyone (without a contingency deal) - for peanuts - before a determination? Do you really think that our team has that low a confidence level in even getting just one patent (or just one infringed claim in one patent) through the USPTO? They are lawyers. Lawyers are known for their huge egos. Huge egos based on their confidence in their abilities. And Moore - no big ego there, right? But, alas, they must not have any confidence in their ability to get one solid claim in one patent to pass muster. And that would explain the low license fees with no contingencies. I guess you are prepared to believe that..... It is possible. Likely?

FWIW,

SGE