...I'm not sure why you have this response. I was asking the question, not suggesting an answer. To answer why I'm asking the question: Nothing is perfect,

...I'm not sure why you have this response. I was asking the question, not suggesting an answer. To answer why I'm asking the question: Nothing is perfect, but that doesn't' mean things can't be improved. If this case had near-zero benefit to the world outside of these two companies, and had it never happened not much outside of these two companies would be impacted, then it's a piece of evidence (one piece, not independently conclusive) that the IP issues involved are too heavy, no longer useful as a matter of public policy. If, on the other hand, this impacts many companies in a good way, or settles certain legal issues that enables real innovation (as opposed to just locking down licensing requirements that don't spur innovation), then it's a piece of evidence (not independently conclusive) that the IP issues involved have actual merit and the protected and expensive fight is regrettable for the cost but not the existence. And of course, on the gripping hand, any number of nuanced levels in the middle, including related issues like "took too long". "issue was important, but settlement leaves outside companies just as confused", etc. Being far too ignorant to have an opinion (as I mentioned in my OP) I was hoping to get some enlightenment, some details, some sources, not hoping for a strawman shutdown. If we did so to every question on the internet, what kind of world do you think we'd end up with?