As I said, of course Chanbond attorney will use a high anchor #. I could care less what it is except as it relates to juror math & being a negotiating tactic using dueling expert witnesses to (in)validate each side's #s and so a high sales revenue figure by Chanbond will promptly be argued the other way by the MSOs with equally lowball anchor #s. Negotiating 101, if you will.
A settlement is easy for all of us - we take our "winnings" and rejoice.
However, if not a settlement then what I can control is a target price being reached at which I might execute and sell my holdings. Thus, my research has focused on what circumstances are most likely to prevail and what are they likely to give in terms of various target prices.
Yet, I am curious how some logic out that a judge at trial or on appeal would allow ALL of a cable company's revenues to be included in the base when they make money from video, telephony and business services unrelated to Docsis 3.0/3.1. Sorry, the analogies proffered previously on the board don't make sense to me in light of how royalties mostly tend to get calculated by the courts except as so much confirmation bias noise (aka wishful thinking).
I think of it this way, if I make money selling broadband and TV, and a patent covers broadband why would my sales revenue related to the coax signal split between the two for distributing TV be included in the total market for broadband revenue related to 3.0/3.1?
For example, if I look at Q1 2018 Comcast revenues the difference between the two is $1.5B -
$4.2B internet (assuming all was relevant to Chanbond's patents)
$5.7B video
----------------
I get that taking total sales revenue of the cable companies makes for easy calculations or high psychological anchor numbers. But, sales revenue derived from the allegedly infringing patents when negotiating for the royalty base for the related patents seems more logical and less when-I-wish-upon-a-star. It also happens to be in keeping with the principles of the G-P guidelines given to jurors.
Since we aren't privy to these negotiations - we have to each do our own version of best homework to estimate in a clear as mud situation. For me, that means building a model that includes the opposing counsel's likely numbers to figure out where it might settle out and trying to figure out which judicial standards will likely rule the day here for assigning royalties.
For some, they build their analysis, interpretations and probable outcomes differently and I learn from what they post if I've overlooked anything in my estimates of what would most likely comprise the basis for the economic market value of the patents. ALL JMHO, of course.
