You said:...

"No matter what Pam says, DM is not going to structure deals that expire prematurely or before Edig is paid their fee, royalty or resititution"...

I agree with the staement as we have DM to take care of these things...

There has been much said on the interrpretation of the BRULETTE v. Thys,(1964), 379 US 29 Supreme Court decision, and its exceptions, as it may affect the "settlements" worked up by DM for EDIG...

FIRST:...

The "PER SE" rule of that case is old, has been openly criticized by Courts and scholars, and will in time be reversed. And if there is any Law Firm that can take it up to the Supreme Court and have it reversed is DM, as they have a track record for doing that. (see, Markman case.) ....

IMO it is a non issue and DM will not be waisting its time on such an appeal as they can take care of it by language inserted into any agreement tht fits one of the many exceptions recognized by the courts...

Besides, I really beleive they will be taking the APPLE case up to the Supreme Court for reversal of a more recent decision which I beleive will be APPLE'S main defense to any infringment claim filed against them by EDIG...(But, that is another subject for later.)...

SECOND:...

I agree with you that it is rather presumptuous to assume that a law firm like DM would not take the appropriate steps to have language inserted into any settlement that makes certain EDIG is paid all sums agreed upon based on one or other exceptions recognized to the "Per Se" rule as it stands today...

LASTLY:...

The fact that MUIRGIRL that takes the time to enlighten us is laudable and is appriciated by me. However, she does not respond well to "Confrontaional discourse" and makes everything "personal"...

IMO we have DM and they will handle everything "Legal" and we will do well not to second guess them...

Good Luack to All...

Gil...