Well, I found the possibility of this transaction "interesting", just on its face with no ties to PTSC. Though I recognize that ARM is more than simply its IP (they have customers), this proposed purchase price DOES hint at the value of certain IP - in the eyes of (one huge probable infringer of the MMP) Apple. Everything ARM does revolves around its IP. It is their product - their "added value".

There was no serious thought of Apple buying PTSC/TPL/MMP (I made reference to such a thing once I believe, because some seemed to be heading down this path). The discussion here went all over the place, some poking at Milestone or anyone else with some truly ignorant discussion IMO. I don't know, perhaps it was healthy to "re-align" thoughts.

The "possible alternative tech" discussion in which I engaged may have been helpful. My understanding is that there is none for high speed microprocessors. The methods of the MMP ('336) are the industry standard.

One of your comments really had me spinning:

"Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see any tech giants purchasing patent portfolios merely so that they can then take over the role of being the plaintiff in a never-ending series of infringement cases."

Is that the reason tech giants buy out small companies for their IP, ALL THE TIME? Is that why Apple is considering buying out ARM, which I suspect is like any other IP oriented company and is engaged in disputes ALL THE TIME. As you acknowledge, ARM is very likely in an ongoing dispute with us. I strongly suspect that in the IP world, it comes with the territory. It is a "known" at the time of purchase. Ongoing litigation involving the acquired IP, or future disputes regarding that IP.

And I suppose that what really struck me with this statement is that when applied to a discussion of PTSC, it suggests our IP is worthless and that PTSC should just fold up its tents and go home - because all we have to look forward to is "a never-ending series of infringement cases".

Maybe we should think for a minute about why PTSC is engaged in infringement cases - why is there a dispute? My understanding is that a dispute basically has to fall from one or more of three issues:

Whether the patents are valid.

Whether there is actual infringement.

Whether the settlement (license) amount demanded is appropriate/realistic.

Right now, as everyone knows, there remains a question of validity.

I'm confident that Alliacense has done their job to verify infringement, and I strongly suspect that defendants KNOW if/that they are infringing.

With resolution of the above issues, the dollar amount becomes the only issue. Then it is simply a risk assessment exercise through negotiation. Do the parties to the dispute want to leave this issue to a jury?

So, as usual, IMO, the long pole in that tent is the USPTO. Answer the question of validity.

And I do suspect that many companies, like the 225 with whom we are supposedly in active discussion, are simply waiting for a determination (from the USPTO) of validity of at least one infringed patent of the MMP. They are not going to spend money only to later find that they didn't have to spend a dime, especially in these economic times. They want the risk on this front eliminated. People having the authority to commit recognize that the wrong decision here could be a "career changer".

I further suspect that all of these companies were provided "data sheets" or whatever demonstrating infringement at some level.

So then, with the issue of validity resolved, and infringement known, it becomes a matter of, again, risk assessment as pertains to a proper settlement/license fee. Do they want to fight, absorbing legal fees and public knowledge of their behavior, along with the risk of potentially placing themselves in a position where a third party (jury) decides the amount? Or do they want to negotiate a palatable amount?

So here we go: I'll go on record and speculate that with validity verified by the USPTO on the '336, we will see some 10% of those with whom we are in "active discussions" settle/license within 60 days of that event. That's right, I'll go on record here saying that IMO at least 20 companies will license the MMP within 60 days of a positive determination by the USPTO.

My only concern with this speculation has to do with how things shake out - will the USPTO simply reject the current re-exam or do an NIRC (causing a 60-day delay awaiting publication in the official Gazette)? So my "clock" starts on the later of the two.

So all the "SGE is always wrong" posters now have something to look forward to! LOL

JMHOs,

SGE