I am not exactly thrilled with RG's letter, but I certainly do not think things are as bleak as you do.
First lets talk about J3 settlement - I still believe there is credibility to the theory that there may be terms contingent on USPTO review. That would also explain why RG did not comment on it - because of confidentiality surrounding settlement. Also keep in mind not Toshiba, Matsushita nor JVC are yet listed on PTSCs website as licensees. The negotiation would go something like this:
Js: Ok, we will pay your demand because it looks like we will loose anyway and we dont want to get hit with treble damages and attorney fees, however we want to wait to pay until after USTPO review just in case.
TPL: Fine, we have almost no concern about USTPO review so if thats all it will take to get this done then fine.
Js: We also want a NDA because we dont want anyone to know what we paid.
TPL: Fine with us, we dont want anyone else to know about the contingency deal anyway because otherwise nobody will pay until after the USPTO review.
Bottom line is I dont think the door is completely closed to idea of more money coming from the J settlement; At least RG's letter does not say that and he does specifically remind us "the details of individual licenses cannot be disclosed." I can not think of any other explanation for all the vague language used to describe the settlement - "business resolution", "the grant of rights in the form of license agreements" ...etc. Lets also not forget the mumbo jumbo language on revenue recognition.
As for the 584, I doubt anyone really expected to win the appeal. Appeals are always a long shot. As I understand the 148 and 336 are more integral to process anyway and although it would be nice to have some extra teeth with the 584, the 148 and 336 are more then enough to sustain an infringement claim.
Would I have likee to see more from RG's letter: yes
Do I think PTSC is still going to make money in the future: yes
