I guess you were so tickled with 20 thums up you had to repost it, right?...Lol...

Unfortunnately, as usual, your post although locquatious, and prolix, ( no WONDER IT GOT 20 THUMBS UP), it is based on your inaccurate perspective of what takes place in the real world of the law practice with respect to contingency fee agreements....

The nexus for your gripes against the company in general, and RP in particular, around which you weave your prolix web of negativity, is the following ORACLE type of pronouncement which is clearly inaccurate.

!) "And the BS by RP about DM being in charge of the IP strategy is just that - BS. The client is always in charge of the case - not the lawyer. DM doesn't do anything unless EDIG agrees with it and is completely in the loop. Otherwise DM runs afoul of Ethics Code."...

This only tells me that your legal experience is limitted to represntation of corporate entities who hire lawyers at an hourly rate and order them to pull rabbits from their bags of tricks, until the end is in sight, (like Digecor v. EDIG case), and then ask their lawyers what should be done...

There is nothing in law, or legal ethics that limit a plaintiff lawyer, ( like DM), from getting an agreement with their client that they shall be in total control of the legal strategy of the case, while informing the client all the time of the developments and progress of the same...

EDIG spent almost a year searching for the right "Experienced" law firm to represent them. And when they chose DM they entered into a contingency fee agreement with them committin almost 50% of the take as payment for processing their claims against 200+ companies. In exchange they agreed to terms spelled out in the contingenct fee agreement which gives DM full control over the legal strategy and spells out the terms that EDIG can bail out from that agreement. (I suggest everyone make an effor to read that Contingency Fee Agreement and understand the terms of it, before entering into conjectures as to what RP and company are obligened to do, or refrain from doing under its terms terms.)...

As I undersatnd the FEE AGREEMENT, EDIG is in the loop and is kept apprised of the deveopments in the cases DM is pursuing for them. They can disagree with DM and FIRE DM, and under the agreement terms the settlements are spelled out...

On the otherhand EDIG has no say in publicizing the developments and/or modify them without agreement od DM. We have discussed this to death in the past, and there is no "ETHICS RULES" as you claim that forbid EDIG and DM from entering in such agreements.

All this means that DM is in charge of legal stratgy including such thing as when to FILE additional cases, and in what sequence he sues whom. Thus, if let us say SAMSUNG was offering $10 million to settle, and EDIG did not agree to it, DM could bail out if they strongly beleived it was a good settlement.

On the other hand, if DM was planning, (as I suspect), to use Samsung as the basis of getting his MARKMAN RULING, and SAMSUNG was offering EDIG $50 million and he recommended that EDIG not to take it, EDIG could fire DM and pay them off under the terms of the FEE AGREEMENT and take the $50 milllion....

So unless you can come up some some case law or ETHICS RULES that makes the FEE AGREEMENT between DM and EDIG unlawful the rest of your jabs at the company and RP are no more than your frustration with EDIG not hitting $5 dollars and are n ot justified...

Gil...