As sophisticated as our jurors may be, coming from a geographical area of highly technical individuals, I hope that our attorneys will present the technical information as if they were dealing with six year olds. I mean this very seriously.

Having previously served as an alternate juror, in a criminal case, it was fairly easy to understand the evidence that was presented and I paid attention because they had my interest. If I were a juror in our patent infringement case, and the conversation shifted to PLLs and VCO and ring oscillator.....I'd be dreaming about sitting on a beach somewhere far away.

I heard that Leckrone was terrible on the stand. I have no doubt that the jurors now dislike him almost as much as we do and they have only had a few hours of experience with him. I hope that the jurors found Chuck to be credible, intelligent, articulate, and likeable. Even if they don't understand the technical side of what he invented, I pray that Moore and Otteson tugged at their heartstrings and they rally for the American inventor who has been fighting his battle with infringers for years. If it's Chuck's time to win big, then it's our time to win big.