"For instance, despite Polaroid's vigorous attempt to show that Kodak had willfully and deliberately infringed, those efforts were tersely dismissed by Judge Mazzone with the words, "That dog won't hunt." This was because Kodak had had the foresight and wisdom to commission thorough and extensive legal opinions on the strength and merit of Polaroid's patents and had cooperated with and paid careful attention to its counsel's advice. Even though the court ultimately disagreed with counsel's conclusions, the fact that Kodak had first obtained those carefully considered opinions enabled it to avoid an additional $1.2 billion dollar multiple damages award, as well as an assessment of Polaroid's legal fees of several million more dollars."

Do you think that is an advantage to our infringers in our ongoing negoiations. Also, willful infringement is hard to prove since we do not market a product with a specificly marked patent claim. I wonder how all that plays out in our negoiations and in the strategy of our infringers. I wonder who was the first infringer that we notified of infringement and when it was. I always thought it strange that a whole industry infringes our invention, yet not one of them have a patent on it. That is my definition of "obviousness".