I was unaware that these subjects were discussed at length. I will have to go back to look at your postings, especially with regard to Fish. You mentioned that he has given depositions in cases on the MMP. I'm now wondering if you mean the patent testimony of years ago or more recently(since agreement w/TPL) as now refered to, as MMP. Also I'm still not sure if his depositions would effect the filing technicalities that I also was refering. I promise to go back and look.

And yes, prior art is always a risk to those holding/recieving patents. I was not trying to convince anyone, only stating that I have chosen to ignore it. Rightly or wrongly. So much so that I know zero about what Pubpat has claimed. Which may explain why I missed prior discussion, as I did not read any posts that refered to pubpat. This coming from me, who was the first and maybe only poster that warned, many months ago, that there was the possibilty of a USPTO review. Mainly so that people were not alarmed and also to show that this is just part of the deal when u are going thru a guantlet of industry giants, trying to get to their vault. Not one is going to let you pass without taking a few swings. First is always we are not infringing, second is prior art, third is validity. Always, imo. Nothing new here with us. So hopefully I won't irritate too many in searching for our achilles heel and maybe we don't even have one. joe