Good points from you today. I find the Folson statement rather amazing in light of the Confidentiality Clause associated with J3 settlement, assuming of course the "pending, first filed" cases are those involving us and the J3 (though I cannot fathom what else they could possibly be).

As one of the strongest advocates of the idea that that MOU with the Js meant that "there's something more possible", I'm feeling a bit vendicated. I'll save the all-out gloating till we KNOW more.

However, I'm very interested in what Ron and Brian opine on this. Do they have anything to say, or will this further clue/"weirdness" be ignored as were the other 15-20 I've pointed at?

I do find the word "pending" as a bit strange.... The cases with the Js were SETTLED. But it appears that the settlement is conditioned on something (PTO decisions IMO) via the MOU. What raises my eyebrows is that, based on the "pending", the conditions of the MOU may be "deeper" than I expected - and in our favor. I had figured that the MOU ( the real money) was conditioned on the '148 and/or '336 passing muster with the PTO unscathed (thus the actions that TPL have taken in its exchange with the PTO examiner - keeping the patents exactly intact). But this "pending" implies to me that if the '148 and '336 come through unscathed, the terms of the MOU will kick in with no further action by the court. Now I strongly suspect that that it goes deeper - that if the patents come out of the PTO modified in any fashion but with at least one significant claim intact, it's back to court for action on the refined patents - possibly only one patent, and possibly only one claim in one patent. This, IMO, would constitute "pending".

A very interesting turn of events. Though I maintained my attitude that there may be more from the Js (and others who've settled since) with appropriate cautions to those reading my novels, this Folson statement comes as a complete, big surprise.

The saga continues!

And I KNOW nuttin'! (?)

SGE