Take your thought a step further, related to this article. What I believe to be misleading here is that anyone reading this article is automatically going to assume that the royalty rates being talked about are a percentage of total revenues. Well let's talk about that with 2 examples -

You have a $30,000 car that uses 100 microprocessors that infringe on our patents.

You have a talking doll that uses 2 processors and costs $30.

Now someone reading the article mentioned, assuming we get a 10% royalty rate, would receive $3,000 for each car and $3 for each doll. Do you really think our technology has added $3,000 of value to each car? Not a chance. The royalty rates IMO would use a percentage as discussed in the article, but the percentage would be based on the costs of the processors, So in reality, if each processor costs $10 (isn't that what the processors were going for in quantity when we were acutally trying to sell them), then we would receive 100 times 10 times 10% = $100 per car. Seems a helluva lot more feasible to me. And I truly beleive that I, even being the dim bulb that I am, could convinvce a jury that my calculation above should be used, rather than a percentage of overall sales as milestone suggests.

I'd like to think I'm wrong, but someone will have to show me some pretty strong evidence to convince me.