TPL represented Mr.Moore in the past regarding his patents. He became friends with Leckrone and trusted him in his business dealings. TPL while representing Mr. Moore (according to Mr. Moore) drew up the comAG's. In those agreements (according to Mr. Moore) were transfere of ownership to TPL for acting in his behalf. Mr Moore stated that he did not transfere ownership and that TPL was an agent working in his employ for a split of the proceeds. He claimed that TPL was his lawyer at the time and misrepresented facts about the agreements to him. TPL claims that they were not acting as his lawyer at the time the agreements were drawn up. Mr Moore response was if I had another attorney why did he not sign-off on the transfere? All of this may tie into the e-mails subpenoed by Acer. Keep in mind now that concerning these emails that TPL wants from Acer are issues of attorney-client protection. Was Mr. Moore a client of TPL. TPL can't say no to Mr. Moore and yes to Acer. Kind of puts them in a bind. Just how important are these e-mails and Mr. Moores testimony Nov. 3 ? If TPL can be proven not to be the owner of the patents what misrepresentations have they made in the past with litigates? How will all of that tie into current and past litigation, or will it have no effect at all? If you are a lawyer representing clients you are looking for every angle you possibly can. Right or wrong has nothing to do with it.

I believe they will be teaching the ramifications of this case in law school for years to come.