So if a judge renders a decision, stating her interpretation of facts that led to her decision, and those facts are incorrect, isn't there recourse?

Newport Tom

You'd think that if the red-handed companies concluded that they had to pay up-- we can't win; we either pay XX now or XXX later-- they would acquiesce to equal pressure from us (EDIG/DM) to let concrete settlement numbers be announced. It's commonly done with other companies. If the pressure for non-disclosure comes from EDIG/DM why is that? We don't want big red-handed companies to know how much or how little we're settling for? If EDIG/DM is looking out for the shareholders by not disclosing the how little, that would be disappointing but make sense because the big R-H companies would obviously like to know that information. But if we are reaching strong settlements it should be announced vigorously and used, along with the facts of the case, as a tool of intimidation to win even greater settlements. A welcome side effect would be to cause more people to buy more shares. Maybe even me.

Newport Tom

Okay, worst case, suppose the judge misconstrues to some degree items we've been counting on. We then proceed to trial? Is the trial another chance to convince her-- or another judge-- of the correct meaning and function of our patents? It would seem to me that the Markman hearing is not the final final, but a preliminary final. (Unless the constructions go completely our way and the defending companies all settle forthwith, in which case it would be a final final.) But probably not all would settle and we would go to trial with the remaining ones. I would think that DM would be prepared for some time now to move ahead to trial. But the way the terms choices were presented to Judge K was quite clear. There's really no middle ground. She's either going to rule for the white hats or the black hats, and I don't think she is going to rule that white is black.