The more I think abnout it the more I am convinced.

1) DM represents Apple

2) The plan included to some degree DM convincing the Texas group to settle based on limited evidence and small settlements

3) A change of venue to Colorado and by way of manipulation got the perfect judge for the second round

4) Purposely contrived claim construction/testimony to question the validity of the patents

5) Initiated negative comment based on a past decision knowing that a bias would be set up

6) Perceived that the judge would rule on an obscure reasoning based on a limited understanding of the patent specifics.

7) If we had won beyond any doubt then infringement would have been proven and Apple and other large infringers would not have a case to argue.

8) We are confronted by Apple and others based on prior decisions, think about it

9) Not necessarily the perfect scenario, but something along these lines is possible