Are you suggesting that my speculation that Sony used Patent Indemnification clauses in their procurement contracts, thus greatly eliminating their "opportunity" for infringement/creating damages, was misguided? I would think that this explanation for the low settlement amount from Sony is much more viable than cloak-'n-dagger suspicions of foul play. Perhaps both explanations were in play....?

I should re-iterate that I have worked for four major corporations in my career, with visibility of contracting practices, and all of them had a policy of not entering contracts with suppliers where a patent indemnification clause was not included (i.e., the clause was in our Standard Terms & Conditions). Also, the US Gov't will not accept a contract sans this clause.

I therefore suspect we will encounter this "problem" (for us) with some frequency, and there is virtually no way of knowing before giving notice to a company of that company's subcontracting policies. Of course, the "problem" is non-existant when it comes to the original manufacturer of the chips - they have nowhere to hide (or no one to hide behind).

All JMHO, and I KNOW nuttin'! Except that such cloak-'n-dagger speculation by yourself and others, with little to no basis, is not helpful to our cause, especially when much more reasonable explanations (for the low Sony settlement) are readily at hand. Come on counselor, is there not some level of reasonable doubt that maybe TPL acted purely on the up-'n-up? You've tried and convicted the Leckrone's based on something that may be pure coincidence.

As for the Intellasys/Sony news not being on the Alliacense site, why are you "amazed"? Try the Intellasys site, where the news is pertinent. The Intellasys/Sony news is not pertinent to Alliacense - separate entity, not a party to the deal.

Sorry to take you to task, but I believe you are jumping to some questionable conclusions, and expressing amazement at things having perfectly logical explanations.

I will acknowledge that there is a high probability that enroads made by Alliacense may provide "openings" for TPL to step through (at minimum, identication of points of contact), but anything more than that is questionable. It just seems like a bit of a leap, in a meeting between Alliacense and an infringer, to jump subjects or try and entertwine discussion of a license (adversarial confrontation) with discussion of future business with another entity for a product that may not be available for years, if ever.

I say this because of my (perhaps flawed) understanding of all these entities with which TPL is involved. Intellasys sells chips (some day); Alliacense sells licenses - currently only those co-owned with PTSC. Another entity (DPC?) is sub to Alliacense purely for the J3/ARM effort. I need a friggin' org chart! LOL Corrections welcome. I do recognize that Leckrone is more or less the master of all TPL related entities.

I'm not trying to attack (and I think you KNOW that), just suggesting you reconsider some of these things.....

Thanks,

SGE