And I've gotten to the point that I can't stand it any more!

"It would therefore appear, as a point of law, there are no winners"

Okay, ya, it was a settlements(s), and the court sees it as "no winner, no loser".  It's purely a "how it will be recorded in the court records" thing.

But, realistically, there should be no argument that we won.  We came out of the process with more than we went in with, both monetarily and in the world's perception of the strength of the patents and our ability to defend them. 

Conversely, the Js lost, because the only way they could possibly be perceived as the winner is if they continued the fight through trial, and prevailed.  For the Js, anything short of that is a loss.  Further, they came out of the process with less than they went in with, both monetarily and in the perception that they have tacitly acknowledged (by virtue of licensing) that they infringed, and will continue to infringe.

It was not a "draw", by any stretch of the imagination, except for one solitary, trivial IMO thing - how it will be recorded in the court records.  Even there, the word "settlement" will appear I would think, and unless someone honestly believes that the above is untrue, that someone will perceive this case as a win for PTSC/TPL.

I just wanted to set the (court) record straight.  IMO, anyone who honestly believes we didn't essentially win in TX is lost.  Applying the strict legal view makes as much sense as applying a strict religious, political, military or humanitarian view.  The reality is that WE WON.

Apply a gambler's view.  I played poker with three guys.  I walked away from the table with more than I arrived with (perhaps a lot more).  The other guys all walked away with less (perhaps a lot less).  I was the winner, they were the losers.  What did I win?  Chips/money, AND RESPECT for what I brought to the table (in this analogy - ability; in our scenario, respect for the strength of the patents AND our team's perceived ability to defend them).

JMHOs, and things I think I KNOW!

And my intent here was not to admonish those providing the strict legal interpretation of the settlements, but to point out that it has no real practical application to the situation.

Having said ALL THAT, there is one thing I must acknowledge.  This is that the settlements included the words "without prejudice".  So ultimately, a clear, absolute, written in stone win may not be visible for years to come (USPTO, possible but unlikely appeals).  Does this matter in the short term?  IMO, no.  Will it matter in the long term?  Probably not, IMO.

SGE