But dude, with all due respect, THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF INFRINGERS! You say ``once all have settled``. The friggin` patents (even if extended) will have expired before ``all have settled``. Again, the ``all`` is a really big number. It`s like people are so focused on the J3 that they think that`s it. Not even close!

``The portion of a company`s revenue that is highly likely to continue in the future. This is revenue that is predictable, stable and can be counted on in the future with a high degree of certainty.``

Okay, further settlements and the income derived I would consider ``highly likely to continue in the future``. And I would consider that income, therefore, fairly ``predictable`` though not precisely over time. One thing though, this revenue won`t be ``stable``, as it should be ever-increasing (at least till we run out of ``big boys`` to settle with, and there are a lot of them internationally). Can it be ``counted on in the future with a high degree of certainty``? My gut says yes.

THE ONLY possible impediment is IF the J3 hold out and we go to court and lose. How likely is that? I guess it is as likely as the big five we`ve already settled with actually acknowledging and settling, paying significant money, on patents that are pure BS. They settled for a reason, that being the perceived validity of the patents. So either they were idiots, or the patents are good. Ergo, the likelihood of the J3 winning in court is minimal, at best, and if (when) they lose the price tag rises exponentially.

All this is why I have kept discounting the need for royalties. As I see it, the need is more to passify the market watchers who demand fairly precise ongoing revenue visibility (as if such is ever really possible with any company). See where I`m coming from?

But I KNOW nuttin`! (though that disclaimer doesn`t fit well with this post - I actually believe what I`m saying! Now if I could just convince the market! LOL).

SGE