"...additional information may have necessitated the decrease in estimated infringement damages."

That also says our licensing team had/has a credibility problem with their infringment analysis. We, as well as those hundreds of other notified Infringers, should then take the position that our reverse engineeering/licensing team throws around hundred+ million dollar damages claims in written form to companies without having sufficent information and evidence to back up their accusations; so those similiar damages lettters should be dismissed outright. It appears that's what you're suggesting was done, because we missed the old mark with a new number by 300% ..

" ...demands made in litigation will almost always be at the upper end of estimates... and throw in the kitchen sink"

I see .. so, the November 2012 "demand" for $42,000,000 is at the upper end now ? ..and that $42M also includes the Kitchen Sink ? So, if there is a Settlement, we should expect that the number will be well south of your Kitchen Sink territory then.

"I highly doubt anyone would have believed we had the possibility of collecting the original $130m demanded."

If the losing party has the funds, "Collecting" is why you go to court, it's the power of the Court which forces the other party to pay. If they infringed the $130M we originally claimed, and we can prove what we claimed, why shouldn't they be held accountable to pay it ? But, in the Amazon case, we now admit we can't prove $130M of "Royalty Exposure for past (pre 2007 only) infringment"; but only $42M (which includes your kitchen sink) up through the present time.

As far as your "coward" inference, my observation is that whenever that word appears, you suddenly do too. It's a remarkable coincidence .. kind of like whistling for a lost dog.