By Mark Pedigo, RGL Forensics (May 8, 2017, 2:09 PM EDT) -- In a recent guest article in Law360 — "The Limited Role Of Analytical Approach To Reasonable Royalty" (April 13, 2017) — that was written in response to my March 3, 2017, article titled "Determining Reasonable Royalties With Analytical Approach," the author asserts that the analytical approach is generally inappropriate for the valuation of intellectual property, is an economically unreliable measure of the value of a feature, is generally unsuited for determining a reasonable royalty, and remains "the roughest of proxies," giving rise to the same mechanical and arbitrary awards that caused the Federal Circuit to pronounce the 25 percent rule of thumb to be junk science in Uniloc v. Microsoft. The author's reasoning for concluding that the analytical approach is no more than inappropriate, unreliable and arbitrary junk science appears to be the following assertions that were made in his article:...