My response to Ronran's points:
1) Mr. Goerner has explicitly stated no more money from J3 - disagree. I do not know if more money is coming but I certainly dispute that Mr. Goerner stated so explicitly. While I conceed his language on its face leads one to that conclusion, it was his lack of specific language combined with odd terminology, or shall I say less then specific language, in the PRs that kept us speculating. Although the door has been closed to the royalty theory and contingency theory, IMO the door has not been closed to the more-then-one-payment theory or deferred payment after some kind of audit or accounting theory. At this point I have to acknowledge that it is more likely then not that no more money is coming but I believe there are still some doors open and we will have to wait and see. If explicit language was used there would be nothing more to discuss.
2) His sources are credible - who knows? Maybe he has a credible source, maybe he doesnt, I just do not put a lot of stock (no pun intended) in unknown, unidentified sources. Given the extreme level of confidentiality with this company I tend to think his sources dont know much more then the rest of us, if anything at all.
3) Invalidation of the patents at trial would indeed very likely
have meant "the end" - Agree. I have to agree with him on this one. A reversal on appeal is always a long shot at best. What I dont know is just how much risk we faced at trial and, as such, whether it was prudent to save our battle until after the USPTO review or if we should have just gone forward.
4) Forgent case was not meant to be specifically compared to our case - I think he was fully intending to make that comparison but jerry called him out on it so now he is backtracking and saying that it is just a general illustration of what can happen in a patent litigation case. Whether the technical arguments made in that case have any applicibility to our case is beyond my expertise and Ronran's as well.
5) Good lawyers on good cases can still loose - agreed but so what. That is the nature of litigation, if you have a good case and believe you can win, you take it to trial. There is always some risk anytime you step into a court room that the trier of fact is going to see things differently then you do, but at some point you have be prepared to take some chance at trial or everyone is going to start calling your bluff, which maybe what is going on now. When you believe the facts and evidence are in your favor, you shove it down the defendants throat and go to trial-period. If you loose, you loose but at some point you have to put all on the line and roll the dice and when everything appears to be in your favor and you have the best chance to win that is when the risk is the smallest and that is when you take that chance. As set forth above, I dont know if the case against the J3 was our best chance, but everything did seem to be in our favor.
6) Chances of re-validation are enhanced with review by the PTO as opposed to a jury of laymen - agreed. However, as Ronran points out himself, there is a difference between validation and infringement. Had we gone forward and won at trial, we would have conclusively proven infringement which would have brought all the other companies to their knees. USPTO will confirm our validity but will still leave the infringement argument open.
Finally, whether or not he is a Christian has no place here. I dont think God cares about the strength of the MMP or whether we make our money. Leave the religious discussion to another forum.
