I would hope people will agree that a settlement is not a win. Otherwise the discussion on this board will be hard to follow and will be argumentative.

But, to keep my friend Sam happy, We did come away from the table with money and that has to be looked at as a WIN. The problem is we cannot logically have TWO different definitions for a WIN.

-------------

Man, you give me a headache. In the first paragraph you say a settlement isn't a win but in the very next paragraph you contradict yourself and say coming away with money has to be looked at as a win. Say what?! Maybe settlements aren't considered a win from a strictly legal sense because the Court hasn't validated our patents but from an investor's perspective, it certainly is a win. So yes, IMO there can be two definitions of a win. Legal versus investor. You can also bet if previous defendants didn't think our patents were solid they wouldn't have paid us what they have. They're probably all VERY happy to get out from under the EDIG/DM rock with the small amounts we've seen to date. I am hoping that changes as more defendants come to the table.

And though the settlement amounts haven't been what we hoped for, they did pay off all our debt and gave us much needed working capital. Bottom line: I trust DM to get the most money from each defendant on a case by case basis. If that means a $1.2M settlement...so be it. If it means going forward to a Markman Hearing, fine by me too. They are the IP legal experts and are running the show. It's easy for us to criticize on the sidelines.