I totally agree with Bill for the reason he states (cash cow, or as I refer to it from the PTSC perspective "a cash cow with a lot of hair on it"), but also because you overlooked something in your IHub post. That is that TPL/Alliacense has basically "sub'd out" the litigation effort against the J3/ARM. As I understand it, Townsend & Townsend is representing Alliacense (TPL/PTSC), along with a bunch of other attorneys that T&T has enlisted to support the effort. Thus, IMO, the only current "effort" being performed by TPL is perhaps some consulting to support the cause, and writing checks to T&T to cover expenses. Thus, again IMO, this leaves the attorneys at Alliacense/TPL free to pursue the basic objective - to engage and settle with other infringers. One nice thing to think about, in reference to my "cash cow with a lot of hair on it", is that as time progresses and we see successful licensing in greater volume/value, this cow will go bald (i.e., the hair will be lost; debentures already gone, warrants can be eliminated, float reduced somewhat via share buy-back, and things happen to create a ongoing revenue stream). As for the "ongoing revenue stream", this can be accomplished in a multitude of ways, but I strongly suspect that as licensing fees go increasingly higher, there will be few viable options for infringers unable to come up with a fat licensing fee other than to offer stock, an incremental payment plan, or - you guessed it - royalties for future infringement. All IMO and I KNOW nuttin'! SGE