Considering the '148 has expired, I'm wondering if there is legal wiggle room for our side to now disregard any of the "questionable" ring oscillator language that the T3 are referring to with respect to Talbot, etc., as per my understanding of their filings, it's in the defense of the '148 that the "qeustionable" language was raised. If the patent is no longer anything we're able to license (except for look back I suppose), perhaps it's worth abandoning if there is a legal benefit that gets around the current BS that the T3 are trying to stir up.

Any legal minds that can comment?