Thanks for your thoughts and sharing of your experience. But I can`t help but think this TPL/J-3 circumstance is a bit different from a standard litigation scenario - the win/loss situation is a bit different from what most would consider ``normal``, ergo, the perspectives of the players probably differ from ``normal``.

What does TPL have to lose? They aren`t in dire straits financially, failure to settle immediately has no real impact (on the surface), and assuming the patents are as valid as settled infringers apparently believed they are, TPL need only wait it out for the ``ultimate club`` (rocket docket) to beat the J-3 into submission. We are the 800 pound gorilla, it seems to me.

This in mind, IF TPL raised the ante, repeatedly with each new licensee, and the J-3 elected to walk, it shouldn`t really matter that much to TPL - they`ll be back....or ``we`ll see ya`all in court``. And I`ve spewed before about how IMO the Texas court scene probably will not be a friendly place for the J-3, and most certainly they recognize this.

So in ``negotiation land``, we are in control IMO.

Reminds me of negotiations when I was employed by Hughes Aircraft. The subsidiary I worked at was ``sole source`` for certain high demand components highly desired by the DoD. We could demand a huge premium for these components, though the rules of play in that realm were different than in the commercial marketplace (where we could simply demand the moon). The other big differentiating factor is that funding for DoD is based on appropriations by Congress. But one factor is in common: if you want it, you gotta come see us, `cuz nobody else has it. Don`t like our price? Go get more money appropriated. A successful negotiation usually ultimately occurred, but primarily because we were hungry - sometimes starving - for the resulting business. So for us, other influencing factors came into play - factors that don`t impact TPL.

Again, TPL isn`t starving, alittle peckish perhaps, but not starving. It would appear that the J-3 ultimately have no alternative. You mention the possibility of a work-around to avoid FUTURE infringement. That doesn`t help the instant situation, or let them off the hook for past infringement (though it would remove the spectre of injunction).

So, IMO, TPL can get away with continually raising the ante. Infringers walk? That`s okay, they`ll be back. THEY don`t have much choice....

Maybe overly optimistic, but that`s my take. I still think it may be more an issue of timing for the J-3. It may come down to who`s in charge and how soon they`re planning to retire (because, as I`ve also spewed about previously, a costly settlement may be a career-killer for the ``decider`` - but if he`s on his way out with a golden parachute....). Could be a significant underlying factor as you allude to.

But I KNOW nuttin`!

BTW, does anyone have a clue as to whether the J-3 are working in concert or totally independently?

SGE