ronran, I am very surprised to ``hear`` you say that this may negate the AMD deal. We are still at least 50% owner of this IP and have every right to license it. While I can understand that AMD might have insisted on such a clause, I don`t think we were in that weak of a position to have needed to accept it. Remember, AMD was a bonus out of the clear blue sky....

Unless , of course, this was anticipated and AMD is the intended vehicle for funding a new set of lawyers...in regards anticipation, I thought the judges decision appeared clear, concise and directly to the point. In fact, based on the wording of the judges decision it is hard for me to believe B & O could not have anticipated this...I assume they have the same access to the cases cited (sarcasm)...

Perhaps B & O wasn`t aware of the ownership issue before they signed on for contingency, tried to make the best of a bad situation, and therefore weren`t as inept as some believe.... while I am the last person to put graduates from the ``upper echelon`` schools in this country on a pedestal, it is hard for me to believe that a Princeton educated lawyer, with Beattie`s experience could not have foreseen this... this actually gives me a little hope...

Worst case... the bridges with Moore/TPL must be mended if we lose the ultimate ownership issue, which IMO may or may not be far away...that is the only thing that makes business sense...both parties realize they would need each other, or at least would make a stronger entity with which to pursue patent infringers...

Read ronran`s thoughts on the important things in life...you may argue with his legal opinions (yank), but he seems to have a firm grasp on the other stuff.