ronran...

I too appreciate the effort you put in expressing your thoughts in trying to explain the effect of a Markman Ruling in EDIG vs. SAMSUNG.

As you noted in your post that preceeded your rather prolix post on the subject, it must have taken you some time and effort to put together16 paragrphs, trying to explain nauances and ramification of legal strategy in a complex IP litigation such as EDIG vs. 180+ defendants case...

I had a lot of popcorn, and reread your post at least three times. It didn't help. I gave up and went to bed. (Lol.)...

It is 5:30 a.m. (my usual wake up time); I read your post one more time and concluded it deserves a response...

In nutshell your post makes the following points:...

1) The Markman Hearing is IMPORTANT, and

2) Litigation is costly, which places a burden on plaintiffs such as Edig ?...

FIRST: THE MARKMAN HEARING

You say the following:...

"The point of all of the above is that whether the parties in this case decide to complete the Markman process will depend upon a number of factors that we, from the outside looking in, will never be able to precisely evaluate. It will involve not only an evaluation of the strength of the evidence (both pro and con), but also of the expense factor, the amount of damages that are realistically recoverable, and the possible effect on future cases yet to be filed, probably among other considerations that we will never know. As to expense, the large mutinational corporations usually have the advantage to some extent IMO — but on the other hand, firms like DM understand that and nevertheless agree to accept these kinds of cases. My opinion at the present time is that there will be a Markman hearing and ruling in our current case with Samsung, but, as always, we shall see."

The inferences from this paragraph are (A) the Markman Hearing may or may not be concluded; something that " "...we, from the outside looking in, will never be able to precisely evalu?!, (B)