Agoracom

Following is the post I made plus more comments after seeing the yahoo post -

---------------

Posted by: DDiligen on May 17, 2008 09:00PM

Right up to the 12/18 settlements PR, PTSC/TPL were having a strong momentum supported by -

1. Largely positive Markman ruling by JW. I say largely because there were some insignificant setbacks because small portion of disputed (patent) claim terms went to J3 side, including the 584 "right justification of instruction group" thing. Those setbacks were not as significant as those claim terms went to our side. More pressure was on J3 after the Markman ruling.

CUPERTINO and CARLSBAD, CA, June 18, 2007 - The TPL Group and Patriot Scientific Corporation (OTCBB: PTSC) today applauded the Markman ruling of the US District Court in the Eastern District of Texas, which broadly confirmed the strength of the Moore Microprocessor Patent™ (MMP) Portfolio jointly owned by the two companies.

2. Momentum was also shown in the licenses deals after the Markman and before 12/18 -

2007-6-18 Texas Court Ruling Confirms Strength of Moore Microprocessor Patent™ Portfolio

2007-7-20 Patriot Scientific Signs Bull to Moore Microprocessor Patent™ Portfolio
2007-8-29 Patriot Scientific Announces Licensing Agreement with the LEGO Group
2007-9-07 Patriot Scientific Licenses Microprocessor Patents to DMP Electronics Inc.
2007-9-10 Denso Wave Becomes 23rd Licensee of Patriot Scientific Patents
2007-10-03 American Power Conversion (APC) to be Covered by Patent License
2007-10-29 Patriot Scientific Welcomes Philips to List of Microprocessor Patent Licensees
2007-11-17 TEAC Corporation Purchases Microprocessor Patent Portfolio License
2007-12-03 Daewoo Electronics Purchases Moore Microprocessor Patent Portfolio License
2007-12-06 WMS Gaming Joins List of Patriot's Microprocessor Licensees
2007-12-07 Lite-On Purchases Microprocessor Patent Portfolio License
2007-12-10 Alpine Electronics Purchases Microprocessor Patent Portfolio License

2007-12-18 B TPL, Toshiba, Matsushita (Panasonic), and JVC Resolve Their Dispute Over the Moore Microprocessor Patent™ Portfolio
2007-12-18 A TPL and NEC Electronics America Resolve Their Dispute Over the Moore Microprocessor Patent™ Portfolio

Notice that in first 10 days on December along, there are four licenses deals just before the 12/18 settlements.

Also notice the signing of Philips, which is not a small potato be any means.

before 12/18, court proceedings were documented by Pacer for all to see, all including those lawyers hired by all those companies hooked by MMP patents. One can imagine that lawyers monitoring the court case were more open to talk to each other before 12/18, since there was no NDA before that date, The acceleration of licensing activities clearly shown that the momentum was on our side.

3. Were USPTO re-exams so negative to change the momentum to J3's side? Not really. since there was no significant development there since re-exam resuests were submitted. The Markman, acceleration of license signing were not irrelevant occurings to those USPTO examiners for them to turn blind eyes at those facts.

So, what were things that had potentially disrupt the momentum of PTSC/TPL to cause them to change the sail, or to play the safe, as some poster suggested that it was TPL/PTSC wanted to settle out of court to avoid trail by juries and prefer to using USPTO re-exam instead? Patent reform act? Hearing of LG case by high court? What else?

If Patent reform and LG case did change the thinking of TPL lawyers, why would they change course to delay the resolution of validity of MMP and infringement of J3 and other potential inf-ringers? If 12/18 event did not happen, the trail would go much faster than either re-exam of three patents and pending LG case. Faster means J3 case were less influenced by later re-exam results and court ruling of pending LG case. This theory does not fly. Many poster had already rejected this by taking the arguments by the disposed poster - MIKE3691 as FUD.

When we say that the momentum was on our side, there are extra benefiting facts not stated above. Including -

1. This was a case of two US companies against thee Japanese companies on our soil.
2. We are defending our rights (patents) against foreign owned companies who steal out property.
3. Let Juries in Texas to decide the case would be more favorable to PTSC/TPL, taking account of many companies had gave in to take a license, plus the interpretation of meaning of claim terms for juries to use were settled by positive Markman ruling.

I do not see any sound reason for TPL to suddenly change strategy in a grand scale before the 12/18 event. For people who think this kind of theory (It was TPL wanted to settle and better playing safe with PTO instead of loosing in a trail) is plausible, we can have a open debate.

If someone post a theory he/her self dose not believe, but want others to believe, is it safe the say that there is an agenda behind the theory?

-------------------------------
Comments after seeing yesterday's yahoo post:

If TPL/PTSC are afraid of adverse effects of Patent reform results or LG case ruling, they should let JW's court to decide on the validity and infringement, not delay it and wait for USPTO re-exams. If Patent reform supporters won to get the Patent reform act passed in congress, the USPTO re-exams will be tougher for TPL/PTSC and value of existing patents will decrease (for example, apportionate of damages will make any infringement award smaller). If LG case were ruled against patent owners, TPL/PTSC will not be able to pursue downstream manufactures of CPU chips from Intel and AMD. The proposed Patent reform act of 2007 was dead in the congress now, but at the end of last year where the settlements happend, it was a potent threat to TPL/PTSC's business model. There is no sound reason for TPL/PTSC to disregard the momentum they had and give up the chance of winning in court to give in for a small settlement from j3. A small settlement from J3 also means more difficulties in getting new licenses from other companies before the conclusion of re-exams (that may take a long time to conclude).

The yahoo post was long and assertive. Was there anything new? Not really. The no more money part was said by the old SR who said it but did not say he learned what he said was from a insider or a source(s) close to PTSC.

The part of sudden change of strategy by TPL/PTSC was suggested by a post from here. Here is the link.

http://www.agoracom.com/ir/patriot/m...

What addition to above post were the credentials of lawyer thing and tweenty plus year of practicing law stuff. Those addition may cheer a few yahoo posters but do not make us here afraid. Speaking of credentials, do those atterneys from J5 and later, J3 have more formidable credentials than the yahoo poster? Those are atterneys in general and PATENT atterneys in specialty. A while ago, apatentlawyer was on this board posting FUD messages with the assistance from the same yahoo poster. We were not scared to face off with apatentlawyer then, and won't be scared now.

Speaking about the game/gambling strategy, did anyone often see those Vegas poker gamblers giveup when holding a strong hand? No often. Why? Because for most case, there is no next round. You lose, people say bye bye to you and there is no show to you round. Even if you have the next round, if you don't have the gut to hold the stronger hand than your apponent, you are losing the current round, plus losing the confidence for winning the next round.

About the resoursefullness of J3 vs limited resource of TPL. On the surface, it sound logical. Let's peal off the skin off and do some math here. According to Dutton, "Since January 2006 through February 29, 2008, TPL Group has granted 44 licenses resulting in recognized revenue of $219.7 million to Phoenix Digital Solutions. Patriot Scientific's share in that revenue since January 2006 was $92.8 million." With $92.8 million from licensing for each of TPL and PTSC, why can anyone say we can not fight tooth and nail with J3 to the bitter end? We spend less than 34 million to get 186 million in return for fighting the ingringers. Why all the sudden, at the end of a big fight, we are afaid of paying another 10 or 20 million or so to get a one hundred million or so from J3 (if a treble damage is rewarded, a lot more will be there)? Remember PTSC give away 40 millions to share holders as divident, where TPL may give bonus to its employees, I don't think they give away as much. Also remember that TPL is a law firm and have earning from non-MMP license activities; plus the Alliance, a TPL entity, got half of their expense provided by PTSC. Also, who has data suggesting that IntellaSys is draining TPL to the point of no more money for the J3 case? Many patent case were won by a samll companies againt a giant. TPL/PTSC are in a much stronger financial situation than most those samll corps like Burst, FORGENT NETWORKS, Acacia Technologies (ACTG) and others. To say we give in because we are financially strapped is irresponsible to say the least. Also considering the treble damage threat to j3. This was the gun pointing at j3's head, plus the reputation damage worth as much. How on the earth that it was us to be afraid of going to the trail, after suing them in CA and then TX and went through the Markman? For people who believe that TPL giveup the J3 fight in hope of winning re-exam for validity of MMP, think about this - Among the first thing recorded in the re-exam proceddings, a search for litigation on related patents was conducted and recorded. The result of litigation and discovery found (Markman ruling, for example) during the litigation are relevent information for PTO re-exam processes. If the patent owner lost the patent case in the court, that would have impact on re-exam, but PTO still need to go through patent code/rule for validation of patent. If patent owner won the court case plus 40 plus corps already signed licenses (commercial succsesses), it will be very difficult for PTO to turn the table over. From these perspectives, how can TPL/PTSC be pleased with the settlements with nothing or a small settlements fees?

One more thought on NDA - it is one thing for us to want to know what were under the lid of NDA; it is another thing for USPTO to know the result of the litigation, no matter there is a NDA or not. If the government entity want to know those info under NDA for their relevence in determining the validity or strenth of patents, can TPL/PTSC and defendents say no? Need some expert to answer this. I think PTO can sign a NDA with all parties promising not to make the material public once all parties agree to disclose info under 12/18 NDA, IMO. I see many documments are non-public in those re-exam case related to 366, 584 and 148 re-exams in the file wrapper.

GLTAL