I think I have to disagree to a degree (!). Those newspaper articles could serve a purpose in court, in that they state and ``give notice`` that PTSC was of the understanding that they had acquired (unshared) patent rights in their intirety. Though communication/availability of these articles to Moore could come into question, they did ``give notice`` to Moore which apparently (as far as I know) went uncontested until recently when actual (apparent) infringement became evident. The lack of Moore`s action when this ``notice`` was given could prove beneficial in court (i.e., if the notice went uncontested by Moore, he either agreed with the statements or considered his actual contibution insignificant).

SGE