A couple of things strike me based on the feedback.

One is the continued focus on securing a recurring revenue stream. While I acknowledge its importance, in order to get better market attention if nothing else, I don`t see it as the ``end all`` at this point in the game (and apparently TPL in particular feels likewise). With hundreds of infringers yet to nail, THAT is our recurring revenue stream. Unpredictable, but it`s there.

The other thing is the comments about a desire to sign up 5-6 more licensees this year, coupled with the comment about our ``heavy hammer`` in settlement discussions, that being the possibility of acquiring injunctions against uncooperative infringers. Perhaps one of our resident lawyers could provide some insight into the injunction process (e.g., can an injunction be pursued prior to any formal litigation being initiated?).

It seems to me, on the surface, that this is indeed a very heavy negotiating hammer. IF (note big IF) this avenue is even partly open, we have unbelieveable leverage. ``Cooperate, or we can bring you to your financial knees``. But, on the other hand, if this avenue were readily available, it seems that past settlements have been very much ``on the cheap``, but that may be just the way it had to be done to establish credibility and the viability of the patents - thereby cementing the leverage with big name acknowledgement that the patents are ``real``.

All that being said, along with recalling the ``early adopter discount`` approach, it may just be that we are now or soon will be in a position to demand (yes, DEMAND) much larger settlements. Settle on our terms, or we`ll see you in court, and by the way we`re pursuing an injunction that could literally put you out of business.

Sounds too good to be true, so it probably is a flawed view (should I take another step back? LOL).

But, just maybe, this is one reason for the long lapse since our last signing. Pressing for a lot more money, causing a great deal more consideration by engaged infringers, and therefore more time.

What flies in the face of all this conjecture is that comment about hoping to get 5-6 more licensees this year. While there is the ``time to consider`` issue, certainly TPL can engage more than 5-6 infringers at a time, plus we have that (possible) big, heavy negotiating hammer (the spectre of injunctions).

It just seems that TPL (/PTSC) should basically have control over the negotiations. Infringer gets testy during discussions, we walk (to the courthouse to sue and/or seek an injunction). Having been in negotiations involving multi-million (sometimes billion) contracts with quite possibly the toughest customer - the US Gov`t (military/NASA) - nothing is feared more than your adversary walking out when they clearly have the upper hand.

In our scenario, there`s also the element of competition, i.e., the essential need for the infringer to get a better deal than their competitors. Early = cheaper.

So my gut and business sense suggests that things should be moving alot faster than 5-6 more licencees by year end, and for progressively much bigger amounts.

Perhaps DP was just trying to be ultra-conservative....

So there`s my long summation.... And I KNOW nuttin`!

SGE