``If you were a company that used ARM technology and you had no indeminty clause, would you want to settle or wait for the outcome of the case?``

Well, that`s the tough call. Biz wise, you`d be looking at the level of risk, etc., trying to make some prudent determination as to the best course of action for your company.

But as I have mentioned before (quite a while ago - in reference to J-3`s apparent reluctance to settle) other, more subtle factors come into play. Would YOU want to be the CEO that settled for some huge amount? How `bout if your were planning to retire (with your golden parachute) in six months? Bite the bullet or make it the next guy`s problem? Will my golden parachute become a lead parachute? And I`m sure there are many other less tangible human factors that come into play.

But remember, if there is no indemnification clause, the liability is shared. This makes the infringer`s analysis much more difficult. Regardless of the outcome with ARM, they`re still on the hook. It becomes a matter of trying to figure how the ARM outcome would effect their probable outcome (if at all), which would be real tough, I`d think. All these things point to one thing - the level of risk. If you cannot confidently make some calcualtions of probable outcome (for your company), the perceived risk goes up.

It`s like examining a business proposition. Some words with no numbers might spark your interest, but until you see some real figures and projections, and more facts, the perceived risk remains high. You`re probably not going to bite until you see the meat. I think you get my drift (!!! LOL). In this case, they can`t even smell the meat. High perceived risk, I would think. Very high.

But, realistically, this current turn of events hasn`t changed anything for those companies, well, except for one thing - their customers. Would a WalMart want to be buying your product and potential placed at risk? The visibility could be harmful, prompting mitigating action (i.e., settlement).

JMHO,

SGE