Unfortunately if they are in fact nuisance fees, eventually someone says NO and fights in court. And if we lose, there are no more nuisance fees. I figured if the settlements were approaching 30 - 40 million, they were NOT nuisance fees. BWDIK. No way you look at it, investing on nuisance fees is not good. Nuisance fees wont get us to where I have been dreaming (over $20). But your input is most of the time awesome and thought provoking. On another subject, do you think there are PAID shills for PTSC as this guy over at ARM says? For the benefit of any other PTSC trolls who happen to be reading this board, I feel I must caution you against reading and believing the nonsense that kiddtrader has been writing recently. You should all be very well aware that the earlier case against Intel that was brought by PTSC was based on a different patent to that on which TPL now claim infringement by ARM. It follows that the prior art necessary to invalidate one patent is not identical with that necessary to invalidate another. Either kiddtrader (and his various other identities) knows this, and is attempting deliberately to mislead people and spread FUD, or he is so far out of his depth that he lacks the intellectual capacity to follow simple facts and reasoning. You should examine the basic facts yourself, and draw whatever conclusions you like based on that information, rather than accept the mindless drivel that trolls like kiddtrader spouts. Remember, PTSC is paying good money for people to shill for them, and you need to separate the hype and lies from the facts. The facts are that ARM has chosen to intervene in the patent case, TPL has in response claimed a single infringement by ARM of a single patent filed in 1995, and that ARM believe they will win the case. Dr Z.