Oh boy...
As if it's not bad enough that you twist my words and meanings around to suit yourself, now you are twisting YOUR OWN WORDS AROUND IN ATTEMPT TO BACK PEDAL THE MISDIRECTIONS AND FALLACIOUS CONCLUSIONS I SHOT DOWN...
You are so far off into left field it's not even funny, in comparison to what I have actually tried to convey...
Where to start......?
1st of all you indeed DID try to make my ideas sound foolish. That's exactly what you did and now you try to backpedal. Not gonna happen.. here's what you said and I quote:
"How about a "small infringement lawsuit" against AMAZON where they have an agreement in principle? LOL!
Probably still not enough proof... always moving those goal posts.
Good thing Hudnell and team didn't settle for your little plan suggested below"
You laughed and basically ridiculed the whole idea....
Saying vplm took a different approach and we don't know how my idea would've worked....is more like it but certainly not how you characterized it at 1st.
You then insert all these what it's in and that's nothing more than you attempting to find holes in the idea. Actually, it was a very common sense and logical simple concept. ALL YOUR what ifs, would be true no matter what route they took so they are not the issue. The simple issue is that due to what I spelled out in simple terms for you, but you conveniently ignored, about how so many msg board goers at the time were saying vplm could not endure a fight with these big dog companies and needed to just sell the patents. If you were to look back in the posts, you would find me saying that licencing was the way to go instead but if they insisted in suing, it would make FAR MORE SENSE to sue a small "alleged" infringed that wouldn't be able to bleed vplm dry and had little money to fight back with which hopefully would result in a win which would start the ball rolling in a snowball effect. That is a pretty eloquent idea AFAIC.
And it WAS NOT "Monday morning quarterbacking" as you dismiss it. It's YOU, 10 yrs later, who are doing the MMQ. My idea THEN was current and appropriate to the time.
Lastly your idea about closing off all escape routes is potentially fatally flawed because may enjoy havent been paying much attention, but that depends completely on the patents being all that, while I have said a million times I don't believe they are and that will eventually be shown. So that's a pretty big "escape route" not covered.
boom
All my commentary is to be considered as my personal opinions, to which I am entitled. And there is no proof of said opinions unless I offer it in the comments.
