There are two different issues:

(1) filing a lawsuit / actually suing a company

(2) how far that lawsuit goes (e.g. Markman, motions for summary judgement, jury verdict, appeal, etc.)

As I see it, right now the problem is #1. Consider a large company like GE. The money we are getting now is the money that their legal department can authorize. In other words, the in-house lawyers get together, figure out that it is worth X to settle and not even see a lawsuit, let alone defend it, FIGURE OUT THAT X < THEIR BUDGET FOR SETTLING SUCH THINGS, and then agree to pay X.

If we sued the company, went through some discovery, and then tried to settle - assuming that discovery didn't weaken our position - the money we would get is the money that THE ENTIRE CORPORATION (not just the legal dept.) could authorize to get rid of a lawsuit that affects THE ENTIRE CORPORATION. In other words, the settlement budget just got A LOT BIGGER.

The above is a HUGE oversimplification, but I think it is sufficiently accurate to be illustrative.

TPL doesn't have to go the distance, but they will have to actually sue more companies if they're ever going to get more than 1-2 million per settlement.

The other issue is the fact that we are, for better or worse, a patent troll - or a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) if I understood some of Wolf's postings. We are NOT a competitor. Apple is going to deal with us much differently than if Microsoft, Motorola or Google showed up with these patents.

But we are not the only NPE out there. So the way a company deals with us signifies how they will deal with other NPEs that approach it. To us, this is a single game - we "play" with a company, they pay, and we are done with them forever. But to the company, this is a game that is repeated over and over again and the rules of the game are dependent on how the last game was played. If Apple paid us $50 million, every single NPE out there would knock on their door tomorrow.

I seem to recall reading somewhere that companies now deal with NPEs by just flat out NOT negotiating with them in the first place. They won't even pay $1. Some companies then refuse to settle even in court. They're willing to risk losing $100s of millions in a jury trial in order to be able to signal to every NPE out there that "if you're gonna take us on, you'd better be prepared to go all the way, because we will NEVER settle". That's a powerful message to send when you know there are thousands of NPEs out there and when you're protecting huge cash hoards (e.g. Apple).

Bottom line? I agree with marc - Lecky is going to HAVE TO change his business model because his old model simply won't work anymore. However, despite his comments, I think he actually will change his model. I just don't expect to see that change until after this case is done. Walk before run and all that.