Worlds Inc (WDDD)

[22na22]

First of all, all caps isn't helping the situation. In fact, it will probably lead some people to not rely on what you're saying rather than rely on it. Just a tip in general.

Second, again, I apologize if I missed the post where he stated so but I don't think anyone is saying combinatory patents have to be involved for a 101 ruling. It's more important that a positive outcome was had for a patent case much more like ours (VirnetX) than the one you have been citing to this point (Vringo). If you'd like to link us directly to a more related case - like at technology case with non-combinatory patents - where 101 was invoked to kill the patents, I'd be super interested to read. It looks to me like the cases posted all were fairly relevant to WDDD's case and in none of them did 101 end up killing the patents. Vringo is just one case.

So while 101 is a risk, it's not as direct and simple as saying "It happened to Vringo, so it's a major risk." All of the DD here says otherwise, that it's a risk, but a minimal one.

And I'm sorry if you have - the Board has become super cluttered in the past week and I don't do this for a living.

Third, do you not view S&G's contingency plan with WDDD to create a super upside in WDDD? Even if WDDD loses, they don't run themselves into bankruptcy because of the contingency. S&G would be paying top $ to have taken on the case. Why do you think they took the case on then?