There is no credibility established by the settlement if the amount paid for the license was $1.00. Obviously, again, that's going to an extreme to make the point, which is that, since there is no judicial decree of infringment, the only thing that will make other potential defendants stand up and take notice is the dollars paid by the J3.
I have sat here for months, albeit on a very sporadic basis until recently, and watched people make gandiose pronouncements such as "the dollars must be huge", "settlement in two weeks" (back in the Fall 2007), "virtually a motion for summary judgment" (in response to the most mundane, routine pleading that could have been filed), and on and on. Some of the "regulars" here have built so many houses of cards, since fallen, that the debris could probably fill Ground Zero at site of the former World Trade Center. Even B-Lunist has said that "a large settlement" gives us validation --- well, I completely agree with that, but now it seems that lots of these people can't seem to define "large" or "huge", etc., in any kind of numerical terms. I certainly don't think they mean any harm, and they are undoubtedly great people on a personal level --- but the hyperbole is IMO irresponsible when one is not willing to engage in any further analysis. Lots of folks seem to think they do "great DD", but for some reason, they can't define "big".
Don't get me wrong --- I want the settlement to be "huge" too, because I haven't sold a single share. However, I also want people to go into April with their heads on straight and realizing that the risk in this investment has not suddenly disappeared merely because there has been a settlement. Instead, all that has happened is that the risk has been shifted from the uncertainty of a trial to the uncertainty of the settlement amount.
Best wishes, my friend. Always good to talk with a long-timer.
