Latley your posts have , imo, reached an exceptional level . Thanks for taking the time. The way I read apl's last post is that because the constuction is a matter of law there is no "intention" other than to get the terms defined correctly, what follows( ie. settlements) is just a product of eliminating the uncertainty. As for terms in the construction I can easily see you could win some and lose some. (Split) Do we really need to hold a markman here to define "generally" or "intended"?

Why mountains are being made from molehills be some supposedly respected posters here is beyond me at this point in time. With anymore positives moving forward I could easily believe that lawyers and exec. could be searching out PTSC info and stopping by here. Don't see the need to try and drive them off or inncessently try to define terms with them or begin to argue points with you. Better use of time could be used to convince them as to why they should settle. Maybe TPL would give a kick back of a point or two in commissions!

Anyway, thanks again for all of your time. joe