I'll repost what I posted yesterday re: the PR and what and to whom it is communicating, then follow up with a post suggesting why we should just relax for awhile.

From me yesterday:

"I've been thinking about it [the PR]....probably too much.

"He noted that while the ruling overwhelmingly
confirms MMP Portfolio claims against Matsushita,
Panasonic, JVC, Toshiba, and NEC entities, there
remains a specific, highly-technical phrase that will
require further scrutiny." Said Leckrone.

Regarding the entities mentioned, and the one not, I
can only suspect they left out ARM because they were
not among the companies we originally sued, and are
not mentioned in the title of the case. They joined in
later, were not specifically pursued, but
"volunteered" to be part of this most likely due to
patent indemnification clauses. Better stated when
closely reading, did we ever (in this venue) make MMP
Portfolio claims against ARM? No.

As for the last sentence, I'm thinking it was very
carefully crafted to enable a couple of things.

First, as has been pointed out, it COULD offer the
Japanese entities an "out" while maintaining their
dignity; it's like saying "you can still settle out of
court and NOT have to acknowledge wrong-doing". If
this goes to trial or summary judgment, with the
Markman interpretations weighing heavily against them,
not only might they suffer huge financial damage, but,
should they lose, they'd also suffer the universal
recognition that they stole or were a knowing party to
stealing. This is an incentive to settle, IMO. No
company wants to acknowledge blatant wrong-doing, as
it would be very damaging to corporate integrity and
credibility.

Second, that last sentence puts them on notice that:

1) there is only one technical phrase, out of all
those (31?) terms/phrases that were in dispute in the
Markman, that has us (the least bit) concerned.
Pretty bold when you think about it, and quite
intimidating I would think.

2) That one, singular, lone technical phrase, while a
concern at the moment, IS undergoing great scrutiny to
determine whether it causes any real damage to our
case. Perhaps we can come up with a way to make the
Judge's interpretation work in our favor. In this
instance, I'm actually hoping the phrase of concern is
the "increases or decreases proportionally". It has
caused a lot of head-scratching here, and may be
causing the same for our team. While I'm personally
confident (in my ignorance) that this phrase much
better supports our claim than it does the
opposition's position, they may be merely mulling it
over in very technical terms to assure their position
is indeed supported, and that this can effectively be
argued to a jury. Of course it may be some other
phrase (where the Court adopted the opposition's
interpretation), but the same thought process probably
applies. They are NOT conceding a loss on that one
term - that is the most solid message.

All that said, I think this PR is directed to the
defendants, not necessarily to us. It's putting them
on notice in a big way.

Consider these words: "the ruling overwhelmingly
confirms MMP Portfolio claims". To me, this is saying
"we're about to file a motion for summary judgment, so
your window of opportunity for settlement - and
maintaining your dignity/integrity - is about to
close". Further, "if you 'pass' on this opportunity,
and we file, the Judge will almost certainly grant the
filing and declare infringement on at least one
patent, probably two, and possibly all three", i.e.,
"you will be declared guilty as hell, and the entire
world will know".

I personally can see these words from Leckrone in no
other way. I'm open to other interpretations, but
cannot fathom the counter arguments on anything I'm
suggesting. Leckrones statement certainly was not an
admission of weakness!

One last thing: in the shareholders meeting,
something was said about how they'd PR a settlement of
$250M (though someone said it was $250M or $225M).
They told us their target number. Do they now have
any reason to back down from that number?

And, that number, did he say "settlement" or
"settlementS totalling"? Where I'm going with that
question is obvious.....

JMHO, and I KNOW nuttin'! However, I'm a former
Contracts guy, where every word matters, and prior to
that a process analyst and directive documents guy,
where every word is carefully weighed to assure that
the directions giving can only be interpretted in the
desired way (or the contract or directive is useless).

SGE

BTW, does this thought process make anyone feel a bit
more confident that more is about to happen, soon?