Not at all emit...donjaworryboutit.

I'm just trying to see how we got from point A to point B, with regards to Nikon.

To re-ask my question in this way, are we assuming from Pacer info that it MUST be LG, or is the Pacer info without a doubt LG, even though the PR did not name the infringer Jan 8th?

The PR did not even say, "due to a NDA with the infringing party, the company name will not be revealed." Or worded any way you wish...

Bottom line, is it a fact or not? Not being NNN here, I just like to see proof.

I realize much thought has gone into this by many that it is Nikon, but it could still be "#3" as per SS's post and my suggestion prior to his post.

Would it not be possible, and wonderful, if an infringer "turned himself in" before DM took any action? Talk about validation!!!! I still feel we will see such an event if not many as time goes on...plea bargins before the fact.

Of course, JMO.