And the attacks begin. LOL!

Now you say that you never suggested that we file a MSJ. Perhaps that's true (I'll go back and look), but you did absolutely say that there is nothing preventing us from filing a MSJ. As suggested in my post, there are multiple issues that IMO prevent a thoughtful party from filing an MSJ before a complete opinion is issued. Further, you did absolutely say that the Judge will not initiate action on preparing his complete opinion until after MSJ is filed. Again, read my post. There are several indicators that we, and the opposition, await issue of the complete opinion before acting.

On top of this, in defense of your position, why hasn't an MSJ been filed by one of the parties? Did they forget, or is it all about the possibility of ongoing settlement negotiations that may be fruitful? While this would be the hope of the court, is another settlement the thing we really need, or is it preferrable to obtain a judgment? I suspect the latter (especially considering the strength of our position IMO), or at minimum a huge value settlement(s).

I note that you again bring up my conjecture (which was clearly indicated as such by consistent use of the phrase "Delusional PTO Contingency Theory") about the content of the J3 MOU. You argued vigorously that there is no way that a settlement would be achieved based on the outcome of some future event. I direct your attention to the last three SEC financial filings (10Q/K) and the section discussing "Contingent Revenues" where it clearly states that one or more licenses have been executed where revenues/royalties are contingent on the outcome of some undisclosed future event. Sounds kinda familiar, doesn't it? Yes, I was apparently wrong regarding the J3 MOU actually being as I suggested. However, all I ever said was it was POSSIBLE, and you argued that such an approach was IMPOSSIBLE. The proof is in the pudding....

Now, rather than just blasting away with insults in a non-responsive post, how about a constructive argument? You eagerly respond to other posts having far less merit. Or is it the standard you seem to abide where you can never, ever, admit the mere possibilty that you might be wrong?

At least when I discover I'm wrong, or even might be wrong, I freely admit it for all to see.

Perhaps an attempt at a constructive argument is pointless..... The proof will come, one way or the other. Either you will be proven right and one of the parties will file a MSJ, we wait, the Judge having been prompted prepares and issues his complete opinion, and we move forward. OR, I will be proven right, the Judge will issue his complete opinion and THEN we file a MSJ.

Either way, I hope something happens soon. IMO, the T2 case is the current kingpin to future licensing. With a positive judgment, I suspect those engaged via the ITC will cave, as well as all the other fence-sitting notified infringing entities.

FWIW,

SGE