First, to Mayride - Welcome aboard!

Second, to Bill - you need to read his post more carefully! He's talking about our opposition's legal department, etc., e.g., the legal department's of Sony, Intel, etc. - and why didn't they catch the chink in our armour re: the '584?

My answer would be that maybe they did, but the strength of the other 6 patents in the MMP (particularly the '148 and '336) convinced them to recommend licensing. And even then, there would remain an element of risk on the '584, so license the whole package.

This line of discussion kinda goes along with my "you only need one good one" thoery. If someone is infringing just one of the patents, we got 'em - especially if it is fundamental to the performance of their "machine". This leads to the question: so if there is only one solid patent out of seven, will we charge less for a license? I don't see why we should. The bottom line issue is unchanged, IMO.

JMHOs,

SGE

PS: Mayairide, I think it may have been me who posted the message about only posting things that contribute to the knowledge of PTSC. I do have a plan in mind to get us to where this site would be a much better resource for the "interested" - especially those with little time. I actually thought about posting it today. The only problem is that it might damage the social aspect of the long-timers on this board. There is a second problem, that being it would require a small amount of poster/reader discipline - which may be like herding cats! I may still post it this weekend, and solicit feedback. I'm thinking that we need to prepare for what may be coming, that is a whole bunch of new folks looking for DD only read a bunch of poster bickering, mis-information, information no longer relevant, etc., and never learn a damn thing that matters.