"We've learned ourselves through the process that even when the parties submit their own preferred constructions, the judge is free to choose either, parts of each, or inject his own." ............ You beat me to it. If someone can simply resolve the above I'll get on board. "Simply" being the operative word. How would the license be written to incorporate a Judge's construction that didn't follow a proposed construction from either party, obscuring who the "true" winner is? There is no simple answer and therefore I think an example like a company buy another company must purchase an MMP license is the more logical contingency. We know Barco's attorneys did not attend the Markman. I'm having difficulty following the logic unless the discussion is being continued out of stubborn pride. A more cynical thought would be an idea is being planted to try and keep shareholders invested in PTSC if they receive no substantial income to allow certain entities to unload shares...