First, you obviously don't understand how PACER works. Don't feel bad, I've learned more about PACER over the last couple of weeks than I ever wanted to know! But when you say:

"By the time Pacer received it and put it on the internet file is many hours later in the day or during that night."

you demonstrate that you don't understand that when the document is filed, it is entered, it has become part of the legal/public record instantly - as fast at the internet connection permits. There are no "PACER people" per se. There is no scanning or handling that must happen. No time lost. It's like posting a message on Agora.

But this and none of the other things you state matter. Please reread my couple of posts on this, because you obviously just don't get it. Trying to apply hindsight to determine a person's mindset looking through the past, when that person was in the past thinking forward, just doesn't work.

Your theme, trying to apply hindsight, revolves around "why would anyone do this?". The answer is extremely simple. A person independently obtained some information, saw potential value in withholding it (knowing that he'd built an expectation of sharing), and withheld it.

Maybe that person was able to fully capitalize, maybe not so much, maybe not at all (beyond knowing to hold).

Then this same person allows your repetitious posts about the ramifications should TPL fail to respond to Barco's motion for SJ, and goes to the effort of protecting those posts so they would stand in spite of numerous violation reports. All the while sitting on the PACER that completely resolved the issue. Of course the PACER also included powerful arguments and some other very provacative info re: infringing chip manufacturers.

This is the other thing people just don't seem to grasp (though I've addressed it before); the real potential value wasn't in the fact a response had been supplied by TPL, it was in the content of that response. Things that, rather amazingly IMO, have been completely ignored. There was a time when such things would have made a difference. Most if not all of TI's customers (as well as those of the three other manufacturers cited) are essentially claimed infringers. Give THAT a couple seconds of thought.

Random or not, you were potentially feeding the fire. And Ron chimed in to verify that your concerns re: ramifications were in large part valid. All this during the week preceeding the hearing.

Then, at virtually the eleventh hour, the PACER is revealed (though, as I've explained, I personally was not surprised if it had actually come at the eleventh hour).

But there are no detailed dates on that PACER, and it is noticed - mostly because that PACER had been anticipated for some time and the "vacant" date block caught their eyes due to the importance of that bit of info and fact it would be unimagineable that it was omitted at the source.

Suspicions are aroused. The actual PACER is obtained and, by golly, there it is: "February 4, 2011". But where was the "4," in the version first issued? It HAD TO HAVE BEEN deliberately removed. It didn't just fall off!

I hope people understand the imporatnce of the date placed at the signature block. It's not like its absense is no big deal. It is all-important, because that date signifies the date the document was approved by proper authority, and the effective date of the action.

Of course the come-back is that he couldn't have made THAT MUCH money. It doesn't matter. We now have the benefit of hindsight. As I suggested to LL when he first made this argument, what if the PPS had gone to 30 cents? Would it still have been okay to have played this game? Remember, he had no idea how well the info in that PACER would be received, but he probably saw the potential. This possibly compounded by the fact that a TPL response had been supplied.

And then I do make assumptions, but those assumptions are validated by one simple thing. The date HAD TO BE deliberately removed. So the question becomes "Why would he do that?". Or is it "Why ELSE would he do that?"?

Perhaps your next argument will be "if the value of that PACER was in the content, why didn't he hold it longer and try to further capitalize?". Because the hearing was the next morning. Again, he didn't KNOW what was going to happen in advance, so the PACER HAD TO BE SHARED before the hearing. If the Judge ruled in our favor based on an unknown PACER submittal, the cat would have been out of the bag, people would lose confidence in their trusted PACER provider, and this avenue of manipulation would be closed.

And then the argument is that he is a great guy for providing PACERS. Yes, it was helpful to us all, and many depended on him. He knew it.

And yes, any one of us could have gone to the trouble to gather the same PACER and share it. Here the proof is in the pudding. Nobody did. Nobody (else) was expected to. He knew it.

And I note that, though we did get an attempt at an explanation (questionable now) as to how the PACER was supposedly missed, we haven't heard a peep in the way of an explanation for how the date became altered, or why. Was it magic?

And finally, having experienced the above, past PACER postings have been examined and compared to the "real deal". The same scenario has occurred several times before, with one PACER apparently held for about two months before being shared - without a date. The only differences from this time and prior occasions was the info in the PACERS, and the fact that this time it was timely caught.

So maybe a bunch of people here just don't care that they have been manipulated - at minimum by suffering through a bunch of your gloomy posts that, had the PACER been known, would likely never have been posted. I suspect EVERYONE suffered some level of anxiety over your prophecies of doom - whether minimal or more, it was completely unnecessary. Would you rather to have been thinking about THAT, or about all those TI customers and those of the other chip manufacturers?

And apparently a bunch of people here find this behavior totally acceptable.

I must be one of the exceptions, because this kind of thing just ticks me off.

I don't think I could possibly make this more clear, so this is my last attempt.

SGE