I hope you realize how very strange your (and Ron's) conclusions are based on what you are saying:

"I see TPL hiring Barco's counsel as a postive. They must see "something" in the MMP. I don't think a firm of their stature would take us on if our patents were impotent. "

While I totally agree with your above statement - it is a completely logical observation - it flies in the face of the other conclusion reached. It's like saying, on the one hand, that the MMP is so weak that a settlement for significant money with Barco is impossible, but on the other hand the MMP is viewed by Barco's counsel as so strong that they want to join our team ASAP.

Also, IMO, the change in counsel was NOT in any way part of the settlement negotiation. One thing has nothing to do with the other. Once the legal aspects of the settlement are done, Barco's counsel's job is done and they are free to do whatever they want.

And consider how goofy the settlement negotiation would be if the counsel issue were part of that negotiation. Who are they negotiating with, and who are THEY responsible to negotiate for - Barco, or themselves?

Barco's counsel would open themselves up to all kinds of problems with Barco if the negotiation directly involved lining up their next client. That is unless TPL agreed to pay Barco in the settlement. But then you're back to the above quote, because this would suggest that the MMP had no value, so why would Barco's counsel want to join us? More importantly, why would we want them? Because of their skills in negotiating for a new client?

If you were TPL, would you want to engage such counsel, regardless of their background on the MMP? There would be the constant fear that when they were supposed to be representing TPL in negotiations for MMP licenses they in reality would be negotiating toward securing future clients, i.e., representing their own interests rather than their client's. The latter being the same concern mentioned above, while they are supposed to be representing Barco they are in (supposed) reality negotiating for themselves?

Ya think the BAR might have a little problem with that? Ya think Barco might complain to the BAR? Ya think Barco's counsel would risk disbarment/being put out of business? Then, boom, TPL wants counsel that is THAT stupid?

Again, IMO, the legal aspects of a Barco settlement are done. All the papaer is ready to go. They may need to complete haggling over dollar amount (perhaps dependent on '336), but that is a Barco management decision - not the lawyer's. Fill in the dollar amount and sign.

And here's another thought - Signature cycle/approval process. The higher the dollar amount (assuming it is already known), the more extensive the approval process within Barco, likely all the way up to Barco's BoD and Chairman (in Belgium/Netherlands). IMO, this is probably most likely where we're at. Everything is done/ready to go, just need the final approvals and to submit the signed papers to the court - originals, not FAX; the legal counsel is virtually free of Barco.

JMHOs,

SGE