You are on to something.

  NEC having a separate pr, saw no shame in saying they have agreed to purchase a license. ( afterall, their 4 counterparts had done the same thing back in Feb. ) This shows me they were not part of the confidential aspects since it was normal business and was not required by the SEC to immediately disclose as per PTSCs' 'extrodinary event ' clause. It also shows , to me, they were the first to give up trying to defend a losing cause. Their shareholders knew they bought 4 other licenses and wouldn't be too disgruntled if they bought a 5th license.

  Interestingly, by this scenario, it caused the Js' scramble for some relief from the throat lock they then confronted. A confidentiality clause was their only precious straw they had left, and they knew it.

  Mr. Cook, PTSCs' lawyer is highly respected, he isn't the sort of guy that caves.  He got exactly what PTSC/TPL/ Alliacense had long ago thought was just.

  As an outsider, I have little knowledge of what that figure turns out to become. I have every faith in the logical assumption it was fantastically close to what they set out to get. Since the second pr did not mention a 'purchase' but instead only an agreement, I'm inclined to believe it turns out to be a royalty . I also think this 'royalty' to be retro-active. It does explain Turley's hinted 10's of millions annual cashflow comment. Which he probably caught flak for veiling.  Kind of like a " strike one". Turleys' quiet as a church mouse right now, I would be as well.

   If Turley merely comments on our next licenses, which have no bearing on the settlement, I'll be extremely happy.

      Long & Strong