There's just too much discussion on a couple of points that shouldn't require a law degree to figure out...

1. It seems obvious to me that LG (or anyone else) would INSIST upon a license to our ENTIRE IP portfolio. WHY would a company pay us a fee for only a single patent and say, in effect: "Thanks, it's been great. Feel free to SUE our butts again if you decide that we've infringed on any of your other precious patents." I'm sorry but if anyone heard differently, then you mis-understood. Billion dollar companies with million dollar lawyers don't leave themselves open to being stung twice by the same company.

2. OF COURSE, EDIG retains control of any and all settlement agreements - technically speaking. As a practical matter though, it's DM's call since they are the experts and do this for a living. EDIG has essentially agreed to follow DM's guidance. They are PARTNERS in this enterprise and neither side is likely to undercut the other.

- Sinkman