I continue to be fascinated of how some depict events on this message board from the deep past. Amazing..... And the mere mention of it - and the "several folks" - is in direct conflict with a HL's supposed policy of not talking about other users or falsely accusing them of having once said certain things.

Of course this has to do with the old "Delusional USPTO Contingency Theory". It was about the POSSIBILITY that the inclusion of a MOU in the J3 Settlement Agreements had to due with payment of royalties contingent on the outcome of an expected future event. After all, typically the purpose of a MOU is to overcome risk via agreement between the parties to do certain things if certain things happen in the future. It's a Contingency Planning instrument, and a non-binding contract because of its contingency nature (which could become binding via inclusion in a settlement agreement). It fit a POSSIBLE scenario of royalties contingent on re-exam success at the USPTO. It could eliminate the bulk of the risk to all parties, and put an end to costly litigation. I could go on with other merits of using a MOU to support such a scenario, but most here probably recall those arguments.

And what was the ultimate agrument, actually? Whether or not such a scenario was POSSIBLE. I and others insisted it was, Ron and others insisted it was not possible. Well, we now know that it certainly was POSSIBLE, because PTSC has advised in multiple 10Qs that they (PDS) have entered such agreements, with royalties contingent on the outcome of an expect future event. Same basic scenario. I wonder where they got the idea?

Ron says, in the post to which this replies:

"....several folks who didn't know what they were talking about and who insisted that it would produce megabucks in the future for PTSC."

Who ever insisted THAT? It sure wasn't me (or anyone else that I can recall). After all, it was consistently referred to as the "Delusional USPTO Contingency Theory?" (at least by me). Do those words suggest anything definitive? Quite the contrary, IMO. It suggests that nothing here is definitive except the fact that it isn't. It suggests discussion of a POSSIBILITY - and a pretty wild one at that. As intended, unless you believe I didn't THINK about how to phrase that title to make it abundantly clear that "this is pretty out there, and definitely not absolute". But still some people apparently never picked up on it.

Ultimately, it was proven that Ron was correct in his statements that the J3 MOU was for no such thing, but to cover some other (insignificant) contingency. And ultimately it is proven that Ron was incorrect in insisting that such a scenario was impossible, because the same basic scenario has actually played out in more recent Licensing Agreements (which consititute "Settlements", ending legal disputes).

The end.

SGE