As I have disclosed several times recently, I am indeed ignorant of details of activities of EDIG in recent times (though I've been around, in and out a few times, since late 1997). My ignorance is primarily about all the details of the legal wranglings and their implications.

This in mind, I intend to make a speculative proposition and provide the basis of that speculation so those more astute can tear it apart as appropriate. Such action will not only enlighten me, but hopefully others who are resident or mere visitors to Agora EDIG. This, in my belief, is the true, hopefully intended purpose of this forum - a better understanding of EDIG as an investment through civil discussion of posted propositions (which, IMO, should always come with some reasonable basis for the proposition - though others may feel that such is not "mandatory").

The basic proposition is that IMO, based on what I think I know, at least two and perhaps three settlements are pending (meaning near term). Here's how I come to that conclusion:

Grundig - This one, the injunction, etc., via the ITC, probably does not serve my proposition well. I have been advised by more-astute Giants that this basically does not represent a money-making settlement. However, Grundig may be considered in view of the following, IMO stronger basis.

Osram Sylvania - "Voluntary Dismissal ... Pursuant to Stipulation", apparently in a court action since it is disclosed in a PACER. Though the "stipulation" may not be fully disclosed, it appears to relate to a requirement that Osram Sylvania "provide certain sales data to eDigital pursuant to the stipulation of the parties". Now, if this were a dismissal for no money, why would EDIG want or need sales data? Why would they dedicate their resources to even look at that data if there's no money (pending) there? IMO, it looks like the parties may have agreed to a settlement amount with the basis being a percentage of revenues generated by infringing product. Once a percentage of revenues is agreed, the missing element is the sales data disclosing revenues by specific product. This also holds true if the parties have agreed to a settlement amount based on royalty per infringing devise sold. Unit sales would likely also be disclosed in sales data (i.e., not just revenues in gross terms). IMO, a full settlement in the form of a license agreement, with money, is pending. And with a percentage of revenues/royalty per unit amount already agreed, it should be a relatively simple matter of applying numbers to numbers to determine the license fee.

MiTAC Digital - "Voluntary Dismissal ... Pursuant to settlement agreed between the parties". Do I see the word "settlement"? Does anyone but me suspect that the settlement agreement requires that MiTAC, at minimum, requires that MiTAK provide sales data (like O-S) with which to determine settlement amount/license fee based on revenues/volume of infringing devices. I say "at minimum" because it is at least equally likely that the full settlement amount has already been agreed, though IMO if that were the case the settlement would have already been announced by EDIG.

And this prompts the question: Why no announcements? IMO, unless they announce a "agreement in principle", it would not be prudent to formally announce anything until, at minimum, the values are known/fully agreed, payment arrangements are made, the all parties have signed on the bottom line. After all, a license agreement would not be executed until all the numbers, etc., are known and included.

And why the dismissals? Because there are indeed, at minimum, "agreements in principle" established and, as strongly implied in the PACERs, there is no further need for formal litigation unless a defendant does not comply with the conditions for dismissal.

JMHOs, open to correction/enlightenment. I'll be away from my PC most of today...

SGE