I believe we have to rely on the lawyers on the board concerning whether KSR Obviousness is a real concern. Since Milestone believes there would not have been a stay or settlement talks if this was a real concern I believe that's the reality

Oh.. OK... We should rely on the lawyers here... Milestone (1st, are you a practicing attorney? Regardless, I will ask your opinion because I do value it).. Do you believe if this went to trial that the Defendants would try to apply the Supreme Courts more liberal definition of KSR/Obviousness to these patents in an attempt to invalidate? Military Book, what's your opinion? Tnm69.. yours? Any other attorneys out there.. opinions, please.

I'd also ask Ron's opinion, but I already know it...

I see the current settlement talks as being a kind of "more taste — no, less filling!" scenario, in which TPL/PTSC are forcefully asserting infringement based on the Markman ruling, while the J3 are screaming about KSR. The Higgins/Shaw issue, while not unimportant, is likely not a "deal breaker" or "case maker" kind of thing one way or the other IMO, and if that is accurate, then the main points of contention continue to be basics, i.e., good ole "infringement versus invalidity" — and the lawyers will beat each others’ brains out with various arguments based on those issues until "the dollars get right".

http://www.agoracom.com/ir/patriot/m...

Would you believe any other nonlawyer opinions.. How about SGE, Wolfie, Billwilke, Ads, Ease... ask their opinions please.