One would think companies like AAPL, MSFT, NOK, Samsung etc, after long court ordeals and tons of money spent in defending themselves, when they see a strong case against them, it would be quicker and cheaper to negotiate a settlement and be done with it. Why spend 2 - 4 years and legal fees, then pay out many times over a negotiated settlement? Makes no sense to me, but it's JMO.
Looking at it from this angle, it becomes more apparent to this layman, what DM/EDIG is doing. Seems to me Pat Nunnaly really did his homework. Present a strong case, wait for the knees to buckle, then grab the cash and a XLA if the shoes fits and split the scene.
Based on the repeated comments by management at the SHM, a court senario seems a last resort. In other words, if you want to be difficult and do it the hard way, bring it on, but if you are smart, as we will kick your .... in court, cut us a check and case closed.
The more settlements we get under our belt the easy way, the more it seems others will follow. The likes of a Samsung folding, has got to send a strong message.
Just my common sense opinion and impression I took away from the SHM, and for all of those who were there, ask your self how many times RP expressed this approach to be the end goal? Did anyone hear him say even once during the opening comments, then during Q&A when Markman and trial came up several times something like, "we can't wait to take several infringers all the way." It was the exact opposite every time with one exception, that he said to the effect "it's possible one or two of the 19 may want to go there."
Now, if we can land some partnerships along the way, that would be sweet.
