[mthoms]

According to the Massimo CEO, Apple has not made any offer whatsoever to resolve this.

[sokoloff]

That not incongruent with a strategy to wait out a patent holder and thereby be known as a difficult target.

Apple’s under no obligation to offer a settlement.

[mthoms]

>That not incongruent with a strategy to wait out a patent holder and thereby be known as a difficult target.

For sure. But it does counter the suggestion you made that Massimo may have been "holding out" for more money.

>Apple’s under no obligation to offer a settlement.

Agreed. I never suggested otherwise.

[sokoloff]

Ah. In my mind “holding out” does not require a settlement offer to be proposed by the counterparty.

If you ask the price to buy my 2005 Honda CRV (license my patent) and I tell you $250K ($250M/yr), many would think I was holding out even if you (Apple) correctly roll your eyes and don’t engage.

[mthoms]

> If you ask the price

The point is… even that preliminary exchange of information never took place. Apple has not engaged whatsoever; There’s been no contact since the original meetings (2013 I think) where they discussed working together. Apple (allegedly) went dark very shortly after and started their own thing.

There would have to be some serious mental gymnastics going on to suggest Massimo was “holding out”.

To use your metaphor; If I’m selling my 1999 4Runner but no one ever approaches me to ask about details (ie price) it’d be very weird to suggest I was “holding out”.

[Grazester]

I don't know when this was said but wouldn't offering to resolve be acknowledgement that there was infringement on Apple's part? Maybe now there will be willing to negotiate something

[fsckboy]

no, you can have settlement discussions without affecting the case.