You are certainly entitled to stand on your opinion, but when you speak from a position of inexperience, you are standing on nothing. The simple fact of the matter is that I do know what I'm talking about and you do not.
I'm not trying to be meanspirited toward you, but you remind me of a fraternity brother of mine back in college. I had just been to Vegas to play blackjack, and on the Strip, a tie (or "push") between the dealer and the player is just that, a tie. Many people believe that a "tie goes to the dealer", but that is wrong (or at least it was back in the mid-70s). My frat bro believed the common myth and actively refused to be convinced otherwise, even though he had never been to Vegas and I had just gotten off the plane from having been there --- no amount of discussion would change his mind, and he thus chose to remain comfortable in his ignorance (remember, that's the dictionary definition, which has nothing to do with intelligence).
I cannot do anything but repeat to you that you are unequivocally, irrevocably, completely, totally, 100% wrong. However, I invite you to go out and ask as many lawyers as you wish (limited to litigation attorneys who handle money cases involving large multinational corporations and proprietary issues), and if any disagree, please provide me with his or her phone number.
While I'm at it, you are also 100% wrong in your prior post about "winning" just because there was a settlement. By your reasoning, if we "walked away from the poker game" with $1.00 dollar more than what we arrived with, we "won". That is simply ludicrous. You need to consider the concept of Pyrrhic victories --- I am surely not saying that is what occurred in our settlement, because again, I don't know, but to assert that every settlement is a "win" for the party who receives the money is simply incorrect.
In my own practice, for instance, if I pay the plaintiff $15,000.00 after heated negotiations in which he has asserted his claim is worth $1,500,000.00, and I have done so by beating his attorney's legal arguments with my own, I assure you that his attorney doesn't consider that a "win" --- do you think that lawyer feels he "won" when he nets a $15,000.00 fee, when he felt he was entitled to $500,000.00, or that the plaintiff feels he "won" when he receives 10% of that to which he originally felt he was entitled? Again, I have done such things for 26+ years (by no means, of course, have all of those negotiations been "wins" from my perspective), while your years of experience in such matters is, yep --- 0.
Why do you steadfastly resist accepting truth and/or fact merely because it is based on experience other than your own? The pinnacle of ignorance, my friend, is the rejection of knowledge --- and I learned the hard way, having been at that pinnacle myself quite a few times when I stubbornly refused to listen to others more knowledgeable and experienced than I was at the time. Believe me, I know and recall the pinnacle very well --- the difference between us is that I chose to swallow my pride and stubbornness so that I could escape the experience.
As I did with Milestone and Greeneyes, I challenge you to numerically define what a "win" for us would be in our settlement with the J3. I have seen you tout for months that "the numbers must be huge", so please, tell us just how "huge" that final number ended up being. Milestone had the guts to stand behind his opinion --- do you? Or are you just waiting to see the number first, so that you can then declare it to be a "win" no matter what it might be? We can all spin things to our liking after the fact, but it takes guts to make a call before the event is known. Nevertheless, I invite you to take the plunge --- you might even enjoy it.
Best wishes.
