While I don't want to see it (and frankly don't know if it actually can happen this way), it wouldn't surprise me that we win a verdict from the jury, but then settle before damages can be assigned in an effort to keep the information confidential. This is provided the veridict and damages deliberations are separate and distinct from one another, and that we would hear the verdict first, and then they'd go back to deliberat on damages. Ron or others can clarify on that issue.

There are positives and negatives to that type of a settlement timing. I would think the only positive for us is if the likely damage recovery is low by our standards. It would allow us to keep that in the dark for future settlements. That being said, I think that would be pretty obvious to any infringers and would likely backfire. I certainly don't think it helps shareholders.

Still, if we get a jury verdict and damages award, and it's lower than we like, it has in a sense set the market price for the MMP. Good from a shareholder visibility point of view even if it proves less beneficial from a revenue stand point. The converse holds true though too, a high award, even if appealed as it would likely be, sets the market for those still not licensed, and gives us leverage to deal with infringers at a new baseline price.

Tick Tock. 48 hours and we may finally know who shot JR!? lol