I am greatly heartened by the ITC Commissioners vote to grant review of the initial ITC decision in September 2013. The vote was unanimous, 4-0 for review, with two recusals. IMO, the unanimous 4-0 decision is telling. The 4 ITC Commissioners are communicating to the public that the legal Appeal presented by Otteson has serious merit and should be more thoroughly investigated by the 4 Commission members. Not to discount the Respondent's Domestic Industry argument, either. Nevertheless, a 4-0 vote on anything is convincing evidence that all 4 Commissioners are in agreement, period.

On balance, IMO, the legal arguments postulated by Otteson, combined with the Oct 2013 NDoC favorable verdict toward PTSC bode well. The NDoC verdict may have been a "Wake up call) to the 4 Commissioners. Am sure they have read and re-read the NDoC court documents and importantly, Judge Grewal's Construction's.

A "Fair" minded court would take into consideration Judge Grewal's rather extensive public and private backround (MIT grad, etc) compared to Judge Gildea's limited expertise in the microprocessor world, coupled with Judge Gildea's apparent changing of the Construction meanings, after original Construction by Gildea, and conclude this Appeal must be given serious thought.

The political, economic, and legal ramifications of an Otteson victory on Appeal from the ITC Commission would be huge. IMO, an Otteson victory would be tempered by an ITC decision to narrow the scope of the offending products imported into the U.S., in order for the foreign companies to "Save face", and not alienate foreign manufacturers. Virt