Do we have to go through this again? It would have to be proceeds to PTSC and PTSC only. PTSC could not possibly obligate an unknown (at the time) third party that was not even contemplated (after all, they were the competition in the endeavor for which Fish was employed).

If that isn't enough, remember that a contract is formed based on the intent of the parties at the time. It obviously was not PTSC's intent, or Fish's expectation, for PTSC to end up teaming up with TPL (after all, if that were their intent, why employ Fish in the first place?).

This issue has been beaten to death. Please let it RIP.

SGE

PS: And I'll again further suggest that INTENT is PTSC's agruing point in the Fish litigation. If you think about it, the agreement with Fish was basically a contingency deal, i.e., if PTSC with Fish coontributing prevailed against TPL, Fish would be rewarded, and if PTSC totally lost against TPL, Fish would likely get nothing. So the agreement was predicated on success, with the use of Fish's testimony/contribution. The endeavor was not successful, and we don't know if Fish contributed anything.