< Still, and this is my second point, the whole way the developments have taken place with Barco, including the "lawyer switch-out" thing, just doesn't "feel" like a settlement involving the payment of money (unless perhaps a mere pittance).>

The way I read the above, it sounds like Ron is saying the following:

1. He agrees that there is settlement.

I think the lawyer switch-out pretty much confirms 1. and doubt there is much disagreement with that fact.

2. The settlement was for nothing or a mere pittance.

The basis for this is the following:

<it would just be very, very unusual for a client like Barco to pay substantial money in settlement with part of the bargain being that its attorneys would then be allowed to "jump ship" to the enemy. And it would be even more unusual for those attorneys to "jump ship" without consulting with Barco in advance, as they would not want to take a chance of "burning any bridges".>

My only difficulty with the above, is when we turn it around. Ron is basically saying that Barco won. But if that is the case, why would they let their counsel "jump ship." Wouldn't that be just as odd? Perhaps even more so, if indeed Barco was in a superior bargaining position?

Perhaps some others might post their thoughts on whether "jumping ship" makes more sense if Barco is winner or loser in settlement negotiations. I'm not sure why Ron thinks it odd, in only in one situation. I think it is just as odd in the other case, if not more so. ???????

Opty