I too notice Ron's apparent continued interest in what is said on this board. And there's nothing wrong with that. I read posts made on that Yahoo board, but have never posted there.

And apparently Ron is indeed reading every post, even those by people I have on ignore. When I responded to a post by long-timer ShBoom, I just reiterated my continuing delusions re: a possible, IMO, contingency deal with the Js and others. Just my feeling based on many weirdnesses associated with that settlement and what has transpired since. Ron and I have addressed these things privately, and have agreed to disagree. Neither of us are capable of proving anything, one way or the other. While I concede that there is a limited likelihood of a contingency deal(s) being in play, I also acknowledge the FACT that it is possible. I point to a couple of the many items that prompt my opinion. Most notable is that MOU.

While I perhaps haven't read all the posts that arose and arroused based, perhaps, on my couple of posts, I did note Ron's mention that someone mentioned J. Ward's continued "monitoring" of the settlement. I used the word "cognizance", which was largely incorrect (though in my experience, though that word is more at "awareness", it also implies some level of responsibility, i.e., one who is aware bears some responsiblility to act/interject if things go haywire). The correct word is "jurisdiction". So, why would a Judge stipulate ongoing jurisdiction over a matter that is completely settled with nothing left "hanging out there"? Perhaps more revealing would be the answer to this question: does J. Ward make this same stipulation in each and every patent case settled via his court?

Many seem to just blow off that MOU. As I have stated many times, and I believe Ron's early explanation for it's use exemplifies my point - MOUs are typically used for contingency planning purposes. MOUs are not binding contracts, because if triggers are not tripped, there is no need for any parties to act. But interestingly, IMO, in this case an MOU was incorporated into the settlement agreement submitted to the court. As such, IMO, the MOU becomes "more binding", like an actual contract, because the settlement, approved by the court, has the backing of the court should possible triggers be tripped. After all, if there is a contractual dispute, where do the parties wind up if the dispute cannot be otherwise resolved? IN COURT. Is the inclusion of an MOU in the settlement a big deal or much ado about nothing? It does appear rather unique - as far as I know. If it has to do with a grandeous contingency deal, they certainly didn't need to handle with an MOU - the contingency could have been written in to the licensing/settlement agreement. But it's there. Ron's early explanation for it's inclusion was IMO weak - having to do with fulfillment of near-term payment terms (something that IMO would be completely unnecessary). It seems to me that if an MOU were necessary for this perceived need, their use would be commonplace and appear as a component in every case settled via the court. So here I'll just pose another question, similar to the above: is an MOU a component of every case settled via J. Ward's court? Better posed: has an MOU been a component of ANY other patent case settled in J. Ward's court, ever? Any court?

I realize I'm speaking without expectation of a response/explanation. There is none, at least that's sensible (unless there is something to my delusions). No logical, or legal, explanation leaves gray area.

Maybe I'm just goofy, but when I see gray (and not simple black or white), my mind keeps churning. It's a curse! LOL My groping for a logical explanation always takes me to the same place. We won't know till we know, and even then it may not be entirely obvious.

Bottom line (as always): there's some weirdness here, and it may be something or it may be nothing to get excited about at all - but IMO all should acknowledge that it's there and not simply ignore it.

And to those who fire away at anyone who mentions the existness of those weirdnesses, IMO they should take a step back and realize one FACT - they exist. And if they cannot accept that certain aspects of that settlement, and what has transpired since, are truly strange, perhaps they can offer explanations that make some sense, legally or logically. Insisting that there's nothing there without offering sensible explanations is IMO the ultimate weirdness.

Funny thing about this novel and it's subject matter is that as time ticks by, to me it all matters less and less. This attitude is simply because IMO with the blessing of one significant (infringed) claim in one patent out of the re-exams, things will turn around in a pretty big hurry. There are enough infringers out there to contribute to a degree where past settlements (and any possible contingencies) will be relatively insignificant by comparison over the long haul.

JMHOs,

SGE

Back to lurker....