I hear ya.  And, using the Intel example, there was an indirect admission of validity, in that they said they licensed just in case of some development in the future.  However, I would suggest that the mere fact that an entity licenses the MMP is a rather direct acknowledgment of the validity of the patents (or why license?). 

Even if the entity suggests they licensed the MMP at a "nuisance level" cost just to avoid the pain in the ass associated with litigation, I find it difficult to believe that a responsible entity would cough up a few million for no apparent reason.  This thought is coupled with the thought that IF they chose to litigate and prevailed, they would recover the total cost of litigation as damages. Please correct me if I'm incorrect in this assumption.

The above is a major reason that I'm dismayed with our recent PPS.  But my angst is tempered with knowledge that there is litigation underway, and until it is resolved infringers won't be in such a rush to settle (but rather delay action until more is known). But I still believe that every new licensee builds validity, applying that much more pressure on the sand-baggers.

And, again, any direct statement of validity would have to appear in associated PRs (visible) to be of any value to us. The actual contract won't appear (and if it did, 95% would probably be pretty boring reading! LOL).

Respectfully,

SGE