Sorry, but I really would not feel comfortable commenting further on my conversation with Mr. Flowers. One always gains nuances and impressions from the spoken word, but I promised him that I would not embellish or attempt to extrapolate anything we discussed, and I intend to keep my word. Nevertheless, I will reiterate that I do not expect that the settlement agreement with TPL will be published --- but that's nothing more than I said a couple of weeks back, i.e., that if we haven't seen it by now, especially in conjunction with the Q, it ain't likely gonna be forthcoming.
Of course, while I would not advise everyone to inundate Mr. Flowers with telephone calls, remember that he did say he tries to speak with those who contact him with sincere inquiries --- he did so for me, even though I've obviously been one of the Copmpany's staunchest critics over the last several years. So, I see no reason why he wouldn't do so for others as time allows.
Having said the above, I do not necessarily draw the same conclusion as have you about "show[ing] the money". As I mentioned in my last post, it seems to me that neither PTSC nor TPL currently has much control over that aspect, which is due to the Markman scenario and the apparent desire of non-defendant companies to await that result. Perhaps a bit of disgression would be helpful here.
You may recall that, back during the J3 cases, I posted on many occasions that the favorable Markman ruling was "one side of the coin" (infringement), and that the PTO re-exams were the other side (validity) --- and that if we had both, then purported infringers would perhaps be more likely to "pay up" more often without being sued. Well, it seems to me that the current scenario is the opposite --- the re-exams are probably a thing of the past so that we have the "validity side of the coin" in our favor, but, since there has yet been no Markman ruling in the T3 cases, we are lacking the "infringement side of the coin". So we are yet again in much the same situation, which may be why the T3 and other purported infringers are purportedly presenting the appearance at this point in time that they are willing to wait on the Markman result.
Remember, as always, that even if everything goes in our favor in the pretrial phases of the T3 cases, lawyers will be lawyers, and they will always try something to either win the case or reduce the dollars paid by their clients. You may recall prior posts in which I have mentioned the old lawyers' saying that, "When the facts are against you, argue the law. When the law is against you, argue the facts. And when both the facts and the law are against you --- well, then, just argue". That will never change.
Sorry for the long-winded reply, but I thought the comparison might be useful. In view of all of this, I can only tell you that I'm not selling, and that I intend to let the chips fall where they may with the Markman ruling --- if the stock goes to zero after that, it was my decision to hold. So be it.
In closing, I would appreciate it very much if everyone would ask me no further questions about my conversation with Mr. Flowers. There really isn't anything more of substance to it than I have already said, and, again, I promised that I would not engage in conjecture or extrapolation. While I certainly do not agree with the way the Company has been run over the last several years and my conversation with Mr. Flowers didn't change my opinions on that, he made an honorable gesture in contacting me and I intend to keep my part of the bargain.
Best wishes to you and all.
