Re: [rtcweb] Counting NOs (Re: Straw Poll on Nokia mincing)

[Monty Montgomery <[e-mail]>]

> Perhaps I have analyzed a few of those patent claims myself?

well... have you?

> I could do that just as well as you guys.

Well... did you?

> I may simply have decided not to publish
> the results, knowing the associated risks (which you guys either are not
> aware of, or are willing to take)

We're aware.  We published.  Call, raise, or fold?

> Perhaps I trust the opinion of those
> lawyers, many of whom I know personally for years, who made RAND
> declarations?

I believe their reasons for doing so are sound but have little to do
with the validity of the IPR claim. Consequence of the current system;
they'd be insane (or just exceptionally moral) _not_ to make the
declaration.

> Perhaps I have an idea what the consequences of
> over-declarations can be?

I fully expect you do, and I'm not being sarcastic.  Nevertheless,
your theoretical analysis is speculative hearsay. To paraphrase a
favorite lawyer of my own, it might as well be small talk about the
weather.

Verifiable fact: Our analysis isn't speculation. It exists. We
published it. We've formally informed the parties that made the IPR
claims that we dispute those claims, and have invited rebuttal of our
analysis and clarification of the asserted rights.  You may offer your
own rebuttal, which would actually be welcome.  The more light shed,
the more transparency, the better.

Our cards are on the table, it's a bit late to bluff.

Monty