Agoracom

This is a continuation of the brainstorm of yesterday after reading post from Virt.

The more I think about different theories, the more I believe that we may have (or we have been given) enough information to solve the J3 puzzle.

By the way, in my previous post, I should write "Do people in the second camp like theories." instead "Do people in the first camp like theories." Sorry for that.

I think we need to revisit what happened in a few weeks just before the announcements on 12/18. I remember the extension requests to JW by parties. It seemed that the case was more likely to go to trail than a conclusion by a settlement when the deadline was looming. 12/18 PR was kind of sudden break through of seemingly unbreakable impasse. 12/18 settlements looked like a resolution done in a hurry to avoid going to trail at the last moment. If this assessment is close to what happened inside and outside of JW's court that time, then I like to ask -

First, if things were done in a hurry, what can happen? Second, there are three defendants and two plaintiffs involved, each had its own interests and objectives. With five parties doing things in a hurry under the pressure of avoiding a trail, what can happen?

The nature answer to above questions is - let's agree on principles and settle the nuts and bolts later.

What were possible principles? A. Agree on a frame work of resolutions for now and to achieve licensing agreement as a near future goal, ie -not finalize licenses because that would require all nuts and bolts to be settled. B. Do not make defendants looking like a total loser. C. Do not make plaintiffs looking weak because of B. D. Do not make contingencies base on future event (PTO re-exam or 584 appeal). E. Find a way to handle PR because no clear-cut or complete resolution can be done in a short time frame.

To achieve A, first, "business resolution" and "grant ... of rights" were used in places of "licenses". Second, MOU was put in place to ensure that nuts and bolts to be settled on agreed schedule. Third, NDA is used because it was a necessity, not because one sided interest to certain party, since no black ink can be printed on a license on time and to announce it to the public.
To achieve B, no mention of settlement $ and not to use the usual language of "purchase licenses".
To achieve C, "all parties were pleased" was used to signal that TPL/PTSC gave B to J3 and took some concession from them as a return.
To achieve D, to achieve A, contingencies base on future event would make things impossible.
To achieve E, became a no brainer as mentioned above.

The term "license" appeared later from 10Q - "The terms of the settlement included purchase of Moore Microprocessor Patent Portfolio by Toshiba, Matsushita and JVC and their respective subsidiaries." This do not contradict above scenarios, but rather conforming with them. It take time to settle nuts and bolts after concrete were pure in, considering how many chips, end user products of each of J3 were involved, and how long they have been produced, plus future production projections.

So, did all nuts and bolts settled before end of January when all Q3 revenue was recognized? And if all nuts and bolts settled before end of January in writing, did J3 all paid in full by that time? Why Q3 revenue was based on end of January date instead of the formal Q3 end date that was on February 29th? Would it be possible that the dates final licenses from each of J3 were different, and/or pay dates were different. I thinks it is likely. If you think that NEC had only one subsidiary involved instead of many regarding to Toshiba and Panasonic, and NEC had licensing experience with MMP before, what does this tell you. NEC Electronics should be the easiest to sign under the dotted line early.

I think we don't have choice but have to wait to see the Q4 10Q. Any theory/speculation on whether J3 paid in full in Q3 is just theory/speculation, no more or no less.

While writing this post, I'm watching on L2. It seems a battle has been waged between the longs and shorts since 13:pm today. If we hold the low close of 4/14 and yesterday, a double bottom will be formed technically. Some people are trying hard prevent that to happen.

GLTAL