You probably planted the seed! But I don't really take it that far in my thinking, i.e., the J3/ARM may KNOW that they are infringing the 548, but feel that the issue is more arguable (thus leaving the opening). Using the strategy I'm suggesting, it really doesn't matter whether or not they infringe on 548. The objective is to divert attention and resources, and buy time (or, for their adversary, waste as much of their time as possible on this one patent, which may ultimately only receive relatively minor attention in court - the more provocative ones being the real and rightful focus, and if they can nail just one of those, credibility on the remaining claims might suffer). All just "suspicious minds at work" stuff! LOL But it does make sense to me - either of our propositions. But then, it would make sense to me for PTSC's P/E multiple to be 50 based on recent history (even with the recent numbers not being as great as we had hoped) and the probable near future, so that perhaps tells something about my sensibilties! It's easy to get a little carried away with this. I used to prepare contract negotiation plans, and tactics can be extremely complex and/or very simple. Simple one: negotiate in a conference room with reasonably narrow tabletops, and learn to read upside down. It works! SGE