Indeed. It has always been my opinion that cross-licensing wasn’t so much about the IP that e.Digital wanted or needed from LG/Casio as it was a means to reach an agreement by reducing the cash outlay for the infringer. I’ve always been curious as to whether an actual value was attached to the IP that e.Digital received and DM compensated accordingly through some adjustment to the 60/40 split (for a particular infringer/agreement), or did DM just let it slide knowing that cross-licensing would become less of an issue as the amounts sought become larger?

The lack of cross-licensing in this agreement (if in fact there was none and they didn’t just not state such) doesn’t necessarily mean more money to EDIG/DM as there are more important factors like the number and value of infringing products.... but it is a very interesting change - as it will become interesting to see if this becomes a trend or remains an exception (as if you could really tell that from such a small sampling).

I say just collect as much money as possible for now. You can always license whatever specific IP that you need later when and if you need it. Otherwise I think it might tend to devalue our own IP when included as part of a settlement... better to keep it out of the equation entirely.

But of course DM hasn’t been asking me.

- Sinkman