I believe what some are thinking is that the software, as a component, is dependent on the hardware, another component, to enable it to function. I actually don't see this as a viable argument for damages borne by us, and don't see this in the Microsoft v. AT&T matter, as it is purely addressing software and how it is distributed. In other words, I agree with you.

It seems a stretch to think that a software maker "damaged" TPL/PTSC, as the device-maker could have selected any adequate hardware to run that software; i.e., the software is agnostic in this respect, and is not solely dependent on our patented technology to work as intented (where applicable, it might be slower to perform, but not totally crippled). Thus, the software folks don't necessarily monetarily benefit from our technology as do the device-makers/component integrators (and hardware component manufacturers).

JMHO, and I KNOW nuttin'!

SGE