I think we would be better off with Moore as a partner. Just one example- in a recent motion that was denied to allow Alliances engineer to view documents for lawyers eyes only we now have to hire an independent expert. One who will possibly have to cram to learn all the in and outs of our technology. It is possible that we may find ourselves at a great disadvantage. However, if the inventor was available to act in this capacity we wouldn't have this problem. And to the contrary, I believe that Acer will use Moore to testify against us. He has already made testimony in the J3 trial ( as indicated in Barco motion for SJ) that it is impossible to determine if a microprocessor uses our clocking technology without the proper documentation. We are being backed into a corner here because our experts, at this time, cannot even view that very documentation. I believe that these issues are at the very heart of Barco motion for SJ. If this is a ploy by Moore to get his patents back someone better start listening. TPL, a smaller percentage of something is greater than 50% of nothing.

Seems to be another example of some bonehead decisions that require scrambling to fix something that common sense should have dictated all along. TPL should have at least looked at the possibility that its experts wouldn't have been allowed to view those documents and been more prepared to deal with the issue.