Excellent response.  Now this is a discussion!  And it is greatly appreciated.  Many times when someone new/seldom seen posts, and I offer alternative views, I've been confronted with all types of evassive tactics - right down to blatant name-calling.  This is refreshing and, again, appreciated.

It seems we are in fairly (very?) close agreement on the issues addressed (perhaps contributing to our successful discussion).  I just have a couple of points:

"1.b. The issues concerned with the Pacers are at the heart of the infringment litigation."  While I do agree that the PACERS/motions on the table will have a serious impact on how a court case (if we get that far) may go, I would suggest that the heart of this litigation is whether there was indeed infringement.  After all, if the defendants could prove no infringement, everything else becomes rather moot.  But notice that the motions on the table (if I recall corrrectly) have little to do with whether infringement has occurred, and much more to do with "periferal bullshit" (PB) which, while provocative, misses the heart of the issue.  With luck, the PB will be dismissed, formally or informally, and the focus will be placed where it belongs.  I suspect that THIS is the bottom line in the mediation (and why our team suggested to the court that there is adequate information already available to enable an effective mediation).  I strongly suspect that in the mediation the discussion/argument will be the scope of the infringement and how much money that's worth. 

And, for this reason, perhaps I'm wrong with my expectation that mediation will fail.  Maybe they could agree on a value.  I'm just thinking that with all the push-back from the Js so far, a reconciliation is not likely without a hammer.  The hammer is a motion for summary judgment, which I'm thinking will be the catalyst for settlement.

"4. I don't believe there are any rules on the order motions are to be addressed."  I too am ignorant of any such rules and doubt they exist - the court can do what it wants I would think.  However, the court does have a big interest in the success of mediation, and should foster it.  While Ward's responses to the motions may come randomly, before or after mediation starts, I continue to think that Ward would see it in the best interest of achieving a successful mediation if more cards were on the table. 

What is interesting here is that, IMO, Ward's formal rejection of motions that could harm our team would have a positive influence on the prospects for mediation, and vice versa (i.e., allowing the PB to influence would reduce the opportunity for a successful mediation, as it would add to the complexity).  Just my perception.....

One last thing here.... (actually referring to 1a).  IF Ward responded to some/all the motions at the eleventh hour, IMO, that would be okay.  I say this because I would think both sides have already formulated their contingency plans for how ever the Judge chooses to rule.  "He ruled this way (these ways) - implement this plan".

We're pretty much in agreement, now both just elaborating/clarifying.  I'm not caught up in my reading, but hope others join the discussion in earnest.

As for people accepting positions at the company; ya gotta think these guys aren't stupid and wouldn't join up on a mere prayer of success.  These are high-level positions/job titles.  Failure has a much more profound impact on these job titles, as does success, on any future employment.  I suspect these folks (including Turley) did one heck of a lot of DD before accepting.  Bodes well.

All JMHO, and again, thank you.

SGE