There is a continuing debate about what "Business Resolution" may really mean. IMO, it's just a softer way of saying "licensing agreement", but the "without prejudice" does conjure thoughts.... The actual settlement agreement may be full of complexities relating to USPTO actions/results (which would make the "without prejudice" language have a purpose, IMO).

But now for that walk on the wild side - some off-the-wall speculation that, IMO, is as good as any. Moxa asks:

"Tomb - What does PTSC have to offer any of the defendents? We have no products other than the MMP."

Shazam! Think back.... What licensee probably made out better than any other? IMO, AMD. Why? Because their licensing agreement included provisions for AMD to acquire an interest in PTSC (the settlement/license, at the time, did not include TPL) via stock acquisition arrangements. I believe most have concluded that AMD later sold that stock for a huge profit, thereby completely offsetting the cost of the license with profit dollars left over. Sweet deal with great forethought on AMD's part (AMD also licensed Inflame/Ignite tech belonging solely to PTSC).

Does this past experience prompt any thoughts?

The Js fought the good fight, but recognized the risk of continuing the battle. In doing so, they must inherently recognize the risk to be encountered by any other company opting for the litigation route. That route probably leads to a sign saying "Detour".....settle and license. They've been in the fight and now know the adversary.

With this knowledge under their belt, perhaps the "business resolution" with the Js includes some method where the Js can capitalize on future MMP licensing with others. This would be for additional cash or cash equivalents. Perhaps an equity interest in TPL, as well as stock interest in PTSC (which has bought a bunch of stock back recently).

The obvious hope for the Js would be continued licensing of the MMP resulting in a return on investment which may offset their expenditure for their licenses, plus.

TPL would get 1/2 the up front licensing money, plus equity holders and additional money for the equity position. PTSC would get their half of the up front money, plus additional monies for the direct sell of company-owned stock to the Js (perhaps at a premium). Result for TPL and PTSC? Each gets a bunch of money, and another bunch of money while giving up very little, all to get the deal done.

All that said, greater complexities could come into play. Timing of establishing equity positions, payment schedules, USPTO influences, etc., etc.

All pretty wild stuff. But if you think about it, with the knowledge they gained from their excursion into litigation land, what better deal could the Js possibly make? And what better deal could TPL and PTSC make? (okay, there's always something better possible....for our side).

So there you go, another possibility - at least as sensible as any other, and perhaps more so. And such a thing would provide justification for short term (at least) secrecy.

Wild speculation, but no more wild than any other IMO.

This post, while sensible IMO, just demonstrates that there a lot of possibilities out there. This I KNOW.

As for any of the above being remotely close to reality as far as terms of settlement....

I KNOW nuttin'!

SGE