When you`re expecting to conduct discussions or litigate with others towards making a deal, you initially ask for more than you honestly expect to get. That`s just how it`s done. Bargaining. So IF you stated on your Web site that you`d be happy sans royalties, that takes that bargaining chip off the table. You don`t want to do that! Shoot for the moon, accept a low orbit satellite!

You go into settlement discussions, and suggest settlement in the form of a big license fee plus big royalties. They balk at the big royalties, you offer a lower royaltiy amount, they still balk, then you offer to accept a bigger license fee and no royalties, they sign.

TPL could go the other way and just lower both the up-front license fee and the ongoing royalties to some piddly amount, then face the task of managing the royalty payments (increasing overhead) and suffer the inherent risks associated with royalties (what if they go under, or work around your patent).

I prefer the path they`re taking - for now. Downstream, when we have a more settlements and/or win in court, TPL would be in a better position to ensure royalties are part of the package, because bargaining power would be greatly increased, and the increased OH for royalty management more justifiable.

Bottom line here is that they are correct to include the bit on royalties on their site if only to be able to walk into negotiations with more ammunition. Heck, I`m surprised they don`t have the ``injunction`` word thrown in there - now there`s a bargaining chip!

Hope this helps.....

SGE