Moxl,
I think TPL may have taken the future supreme court case into consideration, but I don't feel it was the reason for the settlement Vs. going to trial. 1) Judge Ward does not have a history of staying cases. He prefers to settle the issues. He would not stay our case for validity purposes, hence our hesitation to go to trial, when considering the advantage that an exparte re-exam has over trial. I don't think he would have stayed for the defendents in regards to a future case. Especially without contingencies.2) I believe TPL when designing their licensing plan took into consideration the exhaustion doctrine and I believe it would hold up under srutiny. Below is a post I previosly made on the subject:
AJMO
Re: Quanta, etc...
Posted by: CenturyCom on May 11, 2008 08:48AM
Re: Quanta, etc...
I know we have discussed this before, but I believe TPL's licensing scheme would hold up to scrutiny. Does anyone know if LG charged ongoing royalties on both tiers?
I can't see TPL developing this scheme, which they did for obvious reasons, and then cave to the J's because of it. This would definately affect all future licensing revenues, so why settle and not go to trial if this indeed was the cause of the settlement. I just find it hard to believe. If you only charge the end users with infringment, then the intial infringers are off the hook. If you only charge the manufactures, then they bare the full burden of the whole industry. You can't have your cake and eat it too? ( or can you?)
From TPL site: "The MMP Portfolio Licensing Program therefore focuses licensing requirements and royalty collection on the finished "system-level" product. A royalty-free MMP Portfolio license is also available to manufacturers of chips and other unfinished goods
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
