I took a few things from the presentation, one of which was the information. The other was to understand the level of preparedness of the presenters and finally the impact of their message.

They made it very clear their intent in working with infringers - is not to present themselves in a legal framework, reducing their negotiaions from argument vs. argument, but rather to working with customers on an engineering plane to show how the customers (infringer) architecture is in already fact working under the established MMP portfolio, and given that, they need to take the final step in compliance (licensing). A ``walk softly`` approach, with one that assumes a cooperative effort in achieveing concurrence of infringement through proof presented on the Engineering level, rather than a ``convince-me`` attitude focused Legal vs. Legal.

I think both Sr. and Jr. were very clear in conveying the level of prepraration and analysis detail they are exercising in presenting their cases. To reverse engineer a chip takes a considerable amount of time, software, expertise (consisting of many PHD-level Engineers)and Equipment. Every step of a processor has to be analyzed and proven (with documentation) It was clear to me their intent was to over-prepare so there was absolutely no doubt or margin for error in their analysis - no stone unturned, no angle overlooked so that it was overpoweringly obvious to any infringers Chief Engineer that they were above reproach and question in their presentation of technical facts. That`s important if you`re going to go up against the best they have and expect to win. They stressed how they were going up against the giants in the industry, and through this preparation was their proven formula for winning.

Although I found both to be understated in their delivery, It was well aparent the Sr. is the man in charge, no doubt. He has a no-nonsense presence and intelligence that conveyed why he was so successful in his discussions and negotiations with PTSC, and how he still remains in the driver`s seat today.

It was very easy to mistake the Jr. Leckrone`s delivery as very dry or boring, so to speak. I found him very measured in his approach, and I sensed he was giving thought to *every* word he was choosing, knowing well that every word had the potential to be scrutinized and perhaps re-interpreted.

I look at the Sr. Leckrone as the foundation layer with infringers. The first face they see, the rule maker, the one who defines the working boundaries for both sides, I would peg the Jr, as the point man in working more directly with customers (infringers)day to day.

I also would expect that his (Jr.s`) delivery is a carry-over from the amount of time they`ve been spending in Asia (I assume Japan), where a slower delivery better lends itself in a cooperative effort, when using interpreters, or in dealing with people who have English as a second language.

IMO, I think their time spent was valuable in understanding them as professionals, their motivations and their levels of focus to the task at hand. They are traversing new ground, and are the same time trying to be successful without imposing undue significant leverage - a delicate balance to achieve and maintain.

Dont know if this makes sense...perhaps I`m alone in my analysis. JMHO.

Regards