Patriot Scientific

With a couple of exceptions, this was a good response to the questions posed. What I find puzzling is that this response was forthcoming, when prior requests for input/opinions were far more "kind and respectful" (specifically, mine - through April), with questions posed by the admittedly ignorant, and there was virtually no response. In fact, the few responses that were received from you (Ron) and more so Brian were IMO extremely disrespectful and insulting.

As for your response, the ignorant have a few questions:

1. You suggest that the words of RG were totally explicit. Did you find the words, re: the 3Q 10Q, "through January" explicit, or only an opening to endless speculation?

2. Fair enough, re: "sources". But certainly you can understand why people would question this. Not only the "who", but the "what did they disclose" and "was that info proprietary". The door was opened to this line of questions and concerns. IMO, it is unfair to criticize those who posed such questions - they were a "natural outcome".

3. Yes, I'd like to hear more about how a determination by 12 jurors with probable complete ignorance of the technology involved could trump a determination of a PTO examiner who is skilled in the art as you describe. I'd also be interested in an opinion of the probable outcome of an appeal to Judge Ward's court if we had gone to trial, lost the case, and the PTO determination validated before the appeal hearings commenced. In my ignorance, I have a rough time believing that the PTO determination wouldn't "turn the tide".

4. Good point.

5. Good point.

6. See #3.

7/Closing comments. I understand that these comments are likely directed at me. As stated above, my initial inquiries to you/anyone were made in a very kind and respectful fashion. Go look.

Yet a response was not provided other than Brian's "statement of fact" about the MOU (which defies reality per my actual experience in such things). This coupled with his initial post on 4/10 which in essence stated "I haven't been told, but this is my opinion and I know it's right and everyone else's opinion is pure BS" was hardly a "credibility builder". It was arrogant and insulting, period.

Brian's description of how/why an MOU is completely wrong. Basically, he describes one party to the arrangement putting some "loosy goosy" language on paper and everyone signing up. While an MOU may be a wee bit "loose", since it typically is "prospective", it is prepared by very knowledgeable people (Contracts/Legal types). Though they are typically not considered a formal "contract", they are written in a similar fashion. This I KNOW. If a MOU were written as "loosy goosy" as he described, nobody would sign IMO, but would simply opt to "cross that bridge when we come to it". And contrary to the belief of most people (IMO), unnecessary paper is not generated by lawyers just for the sake of generating paper. It must have a purpose, especially in a court/settlement setting I would think.

Thus, Brian further lost credibility with me. Unfortunately for him, someone actually knowledgeable was in the audience. Questions were posed, no response from him, but a response from you did come, proclaiming that Brian was "exactly right". That's when your credibility took the big hit. You both spoke that "this is the absolute truth, the only thing it could be" when it was clearly, based on my experience, exactly wrong. How would you take that, if someone spoke in such "absolutes" and you knew that it was not correct? And further, when questioned, slink off in silence.

Your explanation for the MOU IMO falls under the above category of "generating unnecessary paper". Your example of an MOU for payment terms and remedies would certainly appear unnecessary in a court/settlement setting. The one thing that was right in your description was that the MOU was prospective - contingency planning - "if this happens, we should do this". Note the word "should", as per my experience a MOU is not necessarily binding - it's not a contract. However, I recognize that via the backing of the court, it could be considered binding.

But the bigger problem with your explanation for the MOU, with an example given, was that any other (as speculated here) purpose for the MOU was degraded/removed from the realm of possibility. How was that the right thing to do? A further insult, to most people here, IMO.

You state that "those who attack me do not have the same goals ---
I have repeatedly attempted to have discussion with several of them,
but they have steadfastly refused.". Obviously, here, you are not talking about me. Never, not once since when, December?, have you attempted a discussion with me, even when such discussion was clearly solicited - begged. Not once. I repeat NOT ONCE.

Then you speak of "evil motives". Sitting on my side of the computer, who is displaying "evil motives"? Declaring untruths as absolute truths - not opinions, but absolute truths. Not open to any other possibilities/explanations, or questions/discussion. How would you take that? Statements made as absolute truth, when the absolute truth should not be known to anyone not directly involved. Sources or no sources.

When "called on it", refusing to respond to the probable source of your ire. Unable, or unwilling, to argue, when arguing is your chosen trade, and supposedly that of Brian.

Again, how would you "take" such behavior. Especially when the "truths" proclaimed are not considered to be "positive" by most on this forum. To the contrary, they are widely considered "negative".

I took this behavior as any reasonable person would - evil intent. Yet you throw this statement of intent at the very people/person who have come to see you in that light and have begged for discussion to "resolve the dispute". Imagine, a lawyer who is unwilling to defend his credibility in a direct fashion. It just furthers the perception, right or wrong.

Now, as a courtesy, I'll give you a possible explanation for the MOU that would make sense and support your and Brian's proposition to a large degree. Here it is, on a platter:

The MOU could simply address remedies/penalties for non-compliance with the attached Confidentiality Clause. It would therefore be prospective - contingency planning. The Confidentiality Clause would "be what it would be" and the MOU would address the results of non-compliance by any party to the arrangement. Not binding? With the backing and concurrence of the court, it would be binding simto a contract, but with the court as the direct governing entity to assess perceived/reported non-compliance and to enforce pre-agreed penalties/results of non-compliance (e.g., monetary damages or an "undoing" of the settlement).

This, IMO, would make perfect sense. And it would explain Judge Ward's ongoing oversight. Two issues resolved with one logical explanation.

Now, why didn't you think of that? Would this explanation "fit" Brian's explanation/description? (No).

Now, one last item for your consideration. While my "USPTO Contingency Theory" was described on every occasion as "delusional" and just an opinion based on a bunch of perceived "weirdnesses", there is a reason I have virtually stopped addressing it. Was it because of communications with the company? As a matter of fact, no. In fact I stopped addressing it, for the most part, well before those recent communications. I stopped addressing it because of the admittedly remote possibility that it is correct (ask Steve, as I had pm'd him with this concern weeks ago). I understood the potential ramifications if such speculation were uncovered by the Js or the court. It could be perceived that enough info was "out there" that someone could draw this "delusional" conclusion. This could constitute non-compliance with the MOU. It would be a very bad thing.

Now, you and Brian proclaim an absolute truth. You are steadfast, and virtually unwilling to discuss any other possibility. And you have your "sources". Ever think that maybe such statements might constitute, in a very direct fashion, a non-compliance with the Confidentiality Clause, possibility invoking the remedies of the MOU IF it was designed/intended as I described above? Ramifications?

I suspect the response to that question would be a question as to which parties to the settlement desired the CC.

If it were the Js that wanted the MOU/CC, and it is as you two insist, there should be no threat to them - they came out of the settlement in pretty good shape. No harm, no foul.

If it was TPL/PTSC that wanted the MOU/CC, and the settlement was as you two describe, then TPL/PTSC obviously did NOT want this result to be known. Yet you two insist this is the reality - the result TPL/PTSC DID NOT WANT TO BE KNOWN. No harm, no foul? Who is harmed? Who thought they would be harmed if this result became known? Who, if your "absolute truth" is correct, did YOU two HARM?

Evil intent?

Please note there is no "nasty language" in this post. Only reasonable observations and questions, IMO.

JMHOs,

SGE