And the implied answer per your response to the first question: "Yes, and that's why I cannot address it, because the license came with a Confidentiality Agreement." Similar to the hazard I suggest to not just saying "no"; with the analogy question/answer: "Is that program highly Classified"/"I'm not at liberty...". The response, whether intended or not, strongly implies the full correct answer.

Answer to second question should be:

"We can confirm that the Fed Dist Court system has reported that the complaint against Deere has been withdrawn and the proceeding terminated......The conditions precipitating these events were accompanied by strict confidentiality provisions allowing us only to acknowledge what the Fed Court system has already made public."

Just as done in the posted response from Cliff re: Kyocera. BTW, Cliff, in our second and last conversation on the subject of Deere, put his answer that way. But you insist this is improper?

You rightly state that Cliff, as CEO, had an obligation not to disclose. Did he fulfill that obligation? Absolutely.

And as I addressed in a previous post, had I bothered to follow up advising you of an acknowledgment of Deere, what do you think would have changed? Your list was never changed, and didn't need to be changed. You told me that you were already convinced, and had confirmed via PACER that Deere was a licensee. So the ONLY thing lacking was that you were denied the opportunity to give me a public "nanner-nanner". Wow! Is it THAT important to you that you're still irritated about it, and write about it, some six months later? That's hilarious! LOL Reality.....

Now, you can continue this silly argument if you want, but I will no longer participate. Much ado about nothing....

SGE