In the form of a question, why do you keep insisting that prior settlements have no legal value? This was your advice years ago in response to a suggestion by me, and continues today.

My question is prompted by what I believe was the first PACER, relating to the T3 litigation, issued in 2012. It was the one identifying "(GE, Motorola and Panasonic)" as licensees, then providing precedent for introducing prior licensees as evidence. I do not believe any of those licensees involved significant fees. However, perhaps they (specified) and/or others are known to use chips common to those used by the T3.

So if such evidence has zero legal value, why was it introduced?

Just curious.....

SGE