Okay, I've been away, but have been thinking this situation through in more depth - and probably to my own peril (LOL).

I've already posted about how I share the opinion of a few others that bringing this/these suit(s) is a blocking manuever, or at minimum a delay tactic. Blocking a possible move by our team for a threatened (in PRs, and probably, IMO in the "discussions") injunction. Delaying any possible action by our team (still possibly along the injunction lines) until an outcome with the USPTO - which by some chance may be to their advantage.

After 14 months of talks (let's face it, they were license negotiations), our team, seeing no progress, may have hit their limit and played the injunction threat.

Enough on that vein - on to deeper thought....

I've also already posted about how, IMO, this suit cannot really be harmful to us. I cannot see where these guys are seeking damages for something done by our team. So what is this thing all about?

I'm thinking that the threat of our team pursuing injuntive relief was a catalyst - though it didn't have to be. I'm thinking that there must be an impenetrable empasse in the ongoing negotiations for licenses. And, as I opined in an earlier post, over these many months with all the positive events, the price tag may have just kept going up - not the best scenario for successful negotiations.

This in mind, I'm thinking that the purpose of these suits is to simply gain the formal support of the US court system to aid in resolving this ongoing dispute, coupled with accusations that our team hasn't been negotiationg in good faith, with the ever-increasing price tag for licenses. Seems reasonable enough, again recognizing that IMO there is no way we "damaged" these guys in any way, shape or form.

Now for deeper thought.

Why would these guys think we're (accuse us of) not negotiating in good faith? Because, like us, they have no visibility of specific numbers of licensing amounts we've received from others. So where's the justification for this outrageous price tag? The available numbers just don't support it!

What I think it comes down to is that these guys are using the NDA/CC we have with the Js to their advantage. THOSE are the numbers that justify our price tag. After all, IMO, if those numbers were in the public domain, and truly do support our license price tag, what do they have to point to as far as our team not negotiating in good faith? And how would this action make it past the entry/door to litigation? (i.e., the petition for court actions must have some merit, IMO, to achieve an audience).

Now stretch your brain a little further with my possibly goofy thought process.

If I were TPL, what would I do in the face of this?

I KNOW exactly what I'd do (assuming there is solid justification for the price tag demanded).

I'd contact every significant recent licensee where the license cost serves to justify our current demands (by whatever mathematical extrapolation), and where an NDA/CC exists/is in force (i.e., the numbers are not in the public domain).

I'd tell them that "hey, our negotaitions with your DIRECT COMPETITOR have broken down because they insist we're demanding too much for a license - you know, like the one you spent $X to obtain, for - ultimately - a competitive advantage".

I'd provide a few more details (assuming they are along the direct lines of my conjecture), closing with "these guys are trying to escape, or at least significantly delay, their turn to acquire a license, or are at least trying to get off easy - and it's all because we have not disclosed those settlement/license numbers, and probably never will - specifically".

Faced with this, what do you think THEY would do, especially the Js?

Setting aside the "face saving" issues, they want their competitors to pay MORE for a license than they had to pay - that's where they achieve their desired competitive advantage. And if it is made known that their competitors had to pay more, did they really "lose face"?

What my mind is spinning towards is the possibility that this whole thing could blow up in our new oppositions' face. If it is deemed (specifically by the Js) that it is more practical, for business advantage (or at least parody), to release those numbers, would they do it?

Again, those numbers are probably largely the thing that justifies our current price tag. Release the numbers, provide the justification, and the reasonaing for court involvement in resolving the dispute should evaporate (or the court would be asking What's your problem?). And, this new opposition would be much more incentiveized to pay our price tag, or something close to it. We'd be happy, and the Js would probably be a lot happier than the currently are (which I think is pretty darned unhappy).

So that's it, my "brain squeeze" for tonight....and another Pulitzer! (length - not quality).

Pure speculation with a little actual reasoning thrown in.

JMH thoughts, and I KNOW nuttin'!

SGE