"Non-disclosure will ,in most cases,work to our advantage."

Yes, unfortunately you are exactly right.But if we were selling licenses not at a discount then the opposite would be true. What would influence infringers more than the disclosure of large settlement fees? I think they would be more motivated to come to the table. We need to set a high market rate and start to consistantly deliver on it. When companies see what that rate is they will be forced to consider the amount of their infringment. We also need the ability to start seeking "willful infringment". The reason that it exist is to motivate infringers to settle. Lets be real here, the whole industry has taken advantage of our situation for years, if there is no willful infringment in our case then it just doesn't exist anywhere. Not only does it exist in our case, but I think a case of industry collusion could be made. Intel for example is being accused of stiffling innovation with it's strong handed manipulations in the chip industry. Sound familiar.

Case in point:

Intel said it would defend itself vigorously. In a conference call, Doug Melamed, Intel's general counsel, warned that the FTC's proposed remedies would hinder Intel's "product improvement and innovation" and be "a very dangerous turn for U.S. law."

A protracted legal battle is expected. Microsoft's war with U.S. antitrust regulators spanned a decade, culminating in 2001 with a consent decree restricting its dealings with PC makers and software rivals. Then, as now, federal oversight could adjust the course of the tech sector.

"If the FTC's accusations prove accurate, it could throw a wrench into Intel's long-term aspirations," says Charles King, principal analyst at Pund-IT.

The FTC followed Europe, Japan and South Korea in concluding that inducements Intel uses to get PC makers to use its chips over AMD's amounted to an illegal use of its market power. Intel supplies 80% of the processing chips used in PCs. Since 1999, Intel has pursued "exclusionary" strategies "detrimental to competition and consumers," says Richard Feinstein, director of the FTC's bureau of competition.

The FTC's lawsuit underscores "a clear shift in antitrust enforcement philosophy under the Obama administration," says Bill Whyman, senior managing director of ISI Group. The filing sets forth 26 specific remedies roughly in two groups. The first restricts practices Intel uses to exclude PC chip rival AMD. Last month, Intel agreed to pay AMD $1.25 billion, and curb some of these practices, in exchange for AMD dropping a long-standing civil antitrust lawsuit. "The FTC's requested relief goes much further," says C. Scott Hemphill, antitrust professor at Columbia Law School.

AMD said the FTC's lawsuit will protect consumers.

Nine proposed restrictions would limit how Intel may compete against Nvidia and AMD's ATI unit in supplying GPUs, or graphic processing units, the high-end chips that display photos, video and graphics. "More and more tasks, like rendering videos and 3D graphics, are done better on the GPU, and this poses a threat to Intel," says Dan Vivoli, senior vice president at Nvidia. He says Intel has been using its market power "to keep our innovation from consumers."