1/23/06 - in discussions with ``dozens``....

2/21/06 - ``Dozens`` seeking licenses, competition becoming intense....

3/1/06 - Hundreds contacted, competition intense...

6/2/06 - ``Dozens``, competition intense....

6/12/06 - ``Dozens``.....

6/23/06 - Competition intensifying....

So many, so intense, for so long. Yeah, we nailed seven. That`s good, but just good considering.... Potential licensees recognize the validity of the patents (how could they ignore it considering the licensees to date?), they should want to get a license as soon, i.e., as inexpensively, as possible to (bottom line) gain competitive advantage (and isn`t THAT the prevailing business goal - always?!). The words ``hundreds contacted``, ``in discussions with dozens`` and ``competition intensifying`` also suggest a sense of urgency. So why aren`t there a lot more announcements? Really, seven is good, but given these words from TPL/Leckhorn and the business logic (oh no, not THAT! LOL), one would reasonably thinking there`d be a lot more action.

Time: On the Alliacense/TPL side, it can`t be that tough up front. Boiler-plate proposition for settlement (just insert company name and numbers). I can see the ``customer`` kicking it around, offers flying back and forth, and probably an extensive approval process internal to the licensee. But where`s the sense of urgency voiced by Leckhorn and suggested by business logic?

I KNOW...be patient....

But now I`ll throw out a thought I`ve been incubating for a while now, and it is the one you`ve hit upon. WE KNOW (I think) that settlements have been inked that include a ``mum clause`` in regard to the dollar (and possible other consideration) amount of recent settlements. Perhaps this is at the desire of not only the licensee, but also Alliacense (as I have previously suggested, for strength in future negotiations).

So IF such a clause is being incorporated, what would stop either party from insisting on a complete ``gag`` regarding the transaction? This would not be to Alliacense`s advantage necessarily - the more announced licensees, the greater the perceived validity of the patents, and the strengthing of negotiating position for the future.

However, WHAT IF the contemplating licensee absolutely insisted on a ``gag`` (it would give them zero advantage to have the transaction announced), and WHAT IF Alliacense did not consider the prospective new licensee to be a ``household name`` or a company that would provide that much ``bolster`` to the validity of the patents? Regarding the licensee insisting on a total gag; if you were Alliacense, would you not cave on this stipulation if it would get the ``deal done``?

So the thought that now festers is that maybe, just maybe, there are ``dozens`` of licensees that have actually signed up and there is a contractual ``gag`` in place. Maybe a stretch, maybe not....

And I KNOW nuttin`!

SGE