Thankfully, IMO, the battle continues!

No settlement on either side so far, means chances for clarity for PTSC share holders improves by the minute. I concur with others here, that an INFRINGEMENT verdict will be most beneficial to the cause and is the priority.

I do wonder what will happen if we prevail with an infringement verdict, but the award is low, ie in the $10M range that was mentioned in one of the filings as acceptable to both sides. I know that was stated in a way that meant that may have been BEFORE being dragged into court and having to prosecute HTC for infringement, so hopefully the jury doesn't decide $10M is "fair", as I don't like the idea that it would set a bit of a precedent for future licenses.

Ease's post yesterday citing the footnote is a POSITIVE with respect to that as it basically justifies why EARLY in the licensing process, license fees might be lower, due to invalidity concerns and other uncertainties. Well, with the USPTO wins, and a further court win, we'd be past all those uncertainties, and the part of the footnote that states:

"a reasonable royalty may permissibly reflect the fact that an infringer had to be ordered by a court to pay damages, rather than agreeing to a reasonable royalty"

allows the jury to really disregard that low fee (and Ron, it's low based on HTC's infringing product line and their annual revenues generated by those products) and consider a much higher "reasonable royalty" and then consider treble damages for willful infringement ON TOP of that.

One step at a time, though, and I think it's great that we've taken 4 MONUMENTAL steps so far in that we're in day 5 of the trial, and it continues! Perhaps another 3-4 days of proceedings, and hopefully it will be in the jury's hands. If, at that point, our side was able to ILLUMINATE THE TRUTH for the jury, through the obfuscation and misdirection of the HTC representatives, then we'll have taken that MOST CRITICAL step. Then it will be up to the Judge to empower the jury by having properly instructed them on these issues of damage awards so they have the understanding and clarity to realize their actions need not only to reward the inventor and patent holders for their IP with a reasonable royalty, but also to make a statement to other infringers of the risk they face if they choose to eschew properly licensing at reasonable royalty rates, and instead force litigation. They would hopefully do that by awarding an elevated and PREMIUM royalty rate for this instance, and to HOPEFULLY, PUNISH the willful infringer for thinking they could bully the patent holder into lower or no fees, by pushing litigation, awarding treble damages, for willful infringement.

Who will prevail! Hopefully truth and justice! Tick Tock, Tick Tock! We're nearing the end of the proverbial tunnel! I see the LIGHT! Jury, can I get an AMEN! lol

At 10 cents per share, it's hard to know if that's simply the embodiment of PTSC's version of "it's darkest just before the dawn", ie. a feeling of uncertainty in the market about what even a positive outcome would mean, or a reflection of an expected negative outcome. I choose to believe the former, as while I'm not a techie, I think I understand enough about the patents to believe that all of these companies DO infringe. I just hope Otteson and his colleagues are able to communicate that clearly, and that they do so in a way that makes the jury realize that if you REMOVE the '336 invention from these products, and these products revert to the equivalent of the old BRICK mobile phone of the late 80's. I don't think we'd all be rushing to purchase these HTC phones if that were the case, and I hope the Jury understands that HTC wouldn't be the company it is today if not for employing the tech.

Somone hit the fast forward button please! lol