Actually, not necessarily true. As for my "lengthy" descricription of her folly, it was actually quite short:

"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)."

One long sentence, one relatively simple thought. It was the equivalent of suggesting that a party goes to court, loses, and the winning party is somehow obligated to pay the losing party's legal fees (though I recognize that in this case PTSC did not necessarily lose, and that Fish was only a part of what would be accounted for as a legal expense, but the point still stands). So maybe stupid wasn't the right word; maybe ignorant or naive would have been better (though sophie comes across as having some familiarity with the corporate litigation system, and there is virtually no way the suggested scenario would happen). And maybe sophie isn't stupid, ignorant, or naive? If so, then that answers the last question of your post.

"Animosity" - perhaps, in that this was fairly obvious to me to be an attempt at FUD. But I believe it was more a "what planet are you on?" response. This followed, if I recall correctly, sophie's suggestions that somehow, through what I described as this "stupid logic", PTSC is obligated to pay Fish 24% of its proceeds from the MMP. This I thought was "FUD on FUD", in that first it was PTSC (10%) and TPL (10%) who were somehow obligated, and that somehow transformed into solely PTSC (hence the 24%, though I think 10% + 10% would make 20%, so where the added 4% came from I have no clue). More really stupid logic.

From sophie's posts:

"Since PSC only gets a percentage of the license, sharing the rest with TPL, then wouldn't Fish get more than 10% of what PSC gets? "

Obviously, NO. If Fish is successful, he'd get 10% until he has received $100M. Now is it THAT troubling to think that PTSC would have to give up 10% of the first BILLION they receive? One billion, over $2 EPS (if in a relatively short time), $2 X our current P/E around 10 = $20/share. Man am I pissed! And that's IF the Fish Trust is fully successful.

"As I see it he would get 24% of PTSC take.."

HUH?!

Okay, I've now convinced myself (thank you), my reply was more based on combatting FUD. But you apparently have a problem with that....

As for legal expertise, you're right I'm not a lawyer. But I am an expert in Contracts; my boss was a lawyer, and six of my subordinates were lawyers. So no, not a lawyer, I just implemented direction from one lawyer, and guided/corrected the mistakes of other lawyers.

Business Law 101: A contract between parties cannot obligate other outside parties who are not a party to the contract.

Or as Ronran put it:

"IMO, it would be ludicrous, and far outside the bounds of contractural interpretation by any court decision I have ever come across, to read your cited language with the meaning that PTSC had agreed to pay based on money received by someone not a party to the agreement. In other words, it is implicit in the contract, based on mere common sense, that "received" means "received by PTSC" --- otherwise, PTSC would, ineffect, have agreed to pay money it never had in the first place." (kinda sounds like Ron thought sophie's logic was a bit stupid as well. "Ludicrous" = "Laughable". But you didn't jump on him....).

The more important thing I was also suggesting in my original post is that it is quite possible/probable that the INTENT of the contract with Fish was that PTSC, having won sole ownership of the patents via litigation or settlement, would be obligated to pay Fish. This objective (the win) was not achieved, and such failure may not have been contemplated when the contract was formed. Ron did not hit on this possible/probable legal aspect. People typically do not enter contracts where failure is seriously contemplated. Contracts may contain remedies in the case of failure, but are not formed on basis of an expectation of failure. And that sir, IMO, will be PTSC's legal argument. INTENT:

"If we (PTSC) win sole ownership of the patents (clearly the objective), Mr. Fish will be rewarded for his supporting effort". Essentially a contengency deal. No win, no reward.

All JMHO. Sorry for building a paperback novel!

SGE