I'm not saying the large companies will not use their lobbyists to push hard. I'm not sure why the Commission decided to review the ID, especially since Judge Gildea went out of his way to rule against us and from what I've heard it was an atypical ruling with the level of detail the ALJ went into. The Commission should have relied on the ALJs ID and adopted it as the final determination. I think the only reason the Commission decided to review was the NDoC jury verdict. I would be very surprised, if the Commission ruled in PTSC's favor, to see this case show up on the presidential radar. There are many cases and PTSC is not looking for the world frim these guys. They are looking for reasonable rates that frankly are well below the industry average due to the shennanigans of Leckrone. I'm sure our attorneys could make the point that our proposed license contract with each of these companies does not exceed 30 million dollars and is nothing to them. The prez counsel would imo tell the companies to pay. The system should continue to work until it is legislatively changed. Lastly, the apple vs samsung spat was over industry essential patents (exact name?) and is very different from us so I think the prez reversal is a long shot if we were to win. I think the hardest question is how both sides answer the "current starved" oscillator questionwith respect to the "entire oscillator" phrase. That is the only question posed by thecommission related to the tech. That question could be an agreed upon question by all commission members or only a couple. That question would imply the Commission will not overturn ALJ's Markman of "entire oscillator." Current starved oscillators are essentially voltage controlled oscillators as the current going into the oscillator is regulated by the charge pump via the phase comparator and other components. It is essentially the same question IMO posed to jury in Cali.