No, actually, sophie tried to cause confusion with extremely stupid logic. Sophie made it clear just what litigation she was addressing - the litigation initiated by Fish for services that may or may not have been provided (or provided compitently) during PTSC's litigation against TPL. Then she suggests, by some extreme stretch of the imagination, that - PTSC having lost in its effort to obtain sole ownership of the patents - the opposing party (TPL) would contribute 50% of the compensation to Fish per an agreement that in no way involved TPL as a benefiting party (quite the contrary). 

Now I'll gone on to say, that in any contractual agreement, regardless of what is put in writing, there must exist a "meeting of the minds" of the involved parties - a clear mutual understanding of the "intent". Now I will say that, without a doubt, at the time the agreement between PTSC and Fish was formed, the mutual intent was that PTSC (with Fish's support) would win sole ownership of the patents. That is, at the time the agreement was signed, it was not with the thought/intent that PTSC would fail in meeting this basic objective (and who in their right mind would agree a percentage of proceeds from a failed enterprise?). Intent, and "the meeting of the minds" is key, and most certainly the primary foundation of PTSC's defense. When looking back in time at a contractual agreement, it must be looked at in the context of the intent at that point in time.

And when PTSC settled with TPL in the dispute, was this necessary because the the compelling input to the dispute by Fish (assuming he actually contributed anything at all)? Fish failed to deliver, quite possibly because he failed to present compelling evidence (which a reasonable person probably would have had under the circumstances, but he is not a reasonable person - he allowed patent filings of his art with Moore's name attached and without language to assure sharing of future proceeds, he let his rights go to Nanotronics, but then sued - and lost to PTSC - in his bid to reclaim those rights - yup, a brilliant businessman).

All JMHO,

SGE