Sorry all, the first attempt got posted before it was completed; my computer had a hiccup...

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 evaluate?!"

I disagree with this conclusion. Markman Hearing is an essential element of EDIG's case. And barring an outright purchase of EDIG by SAMSUNG it shall be concluded.

Samsung was chosen by DM for a Markman Ruling not by happenstance. They chose well, as IMO a positive Ruling for EDIG in the Hearing scheduled for February is the Key to opening the door for filin law suit against the likes of Apple, Hp, Intel, MSFT, etc., etc., and all the rest of 180+ identified defendants...

A Markman Ruling is a Judgment by the Court on the technical issues relating to the validity of the EDIG's claims as to what their patents apply to. In essence it permits the Court to "DECIDE" if EDIG has a claim that is judicable.

As you aptly pointed out, if the Court decides against EDIG it is all over, and defendants can avail themselves to Article III declaratory releif.

On the other hand if the RULING is favorable to EDIG, they too can avail themselves to the same as the only issue left would be the amount of damages sought.

FINALLY, you have made much ado about nothing in your emphasis of your percievd disadvantage of EDIG as to "Costs" of litigation...

This is do or die for EDIG. Of course the burden is too big for those who are poor and/or cannot support protratced litigation. That, at time may be percieved as a short coming of out legal system. But, if you have been reading some of the judments posted by DABOSS an Sman998 the law has a way of evening things out, if the justice of the case demans it...

In EDIG case, they would just as soon Samsung had worked with them as they were hugging them closely back in CES 2000. But, it did not work that way, and so here we are an EDIG is suing Samsung and others with everything they have got. So, "Cost, and Expenses" are not a determintive factor at this stage...

In short, Markman Hearing shall take place, unless the buy out occurs first; and, EDIG shall get the positive RULING which shall generate many more settlements, either right away, or on the Courthouse stpes, as the potential of treble damage will be incentive for defendants to settle, IMO...

Thanks for your post...

Gil...