09 Mar 2005, 12:30 AM EST

Msg. 71408 of 71408

This NEWS about B&O was not what we wanted, but it should not have been totally unexpected. Consider this history:

1). PTSC first invited Moore/TPL to JOIN with them in the infringement suit.

2). When Moore/TPL declined then PTSC decided to sue Moore/TPL.

3). Once they sued the Judge told them to work out their differences.

4). Instead, B&O decided to ignore this advice and take the very aggressive approach of a winner take all strategy. They courted Higgins and enticed him with money. Whatever the facts were, and whatever Higgins knew, that action by B&O was clearly a huge mistake and in all probability it tainted the issue of any possible testimony. I felt they should have applied to the court for discovery of Higgins before they contacted Higgins, but B&O did not do that, instead they ``knew better than the Judge`` -- those are about the words they arrogantly told the world within the deposition arguments with the opposing attorneys.

5). IMO - the Judge has responded with a pretty clear message that these parties now need to work out their differences and get this patent consolidated between them.

6). Meantime, during it all, both parties have shown there is quite probably some validity to the patent. Both parties have successfully licensed the technology. Consolidating their ownership would make all future licenses much more attractive.

It is time for the parties to negotiate in earnest - IMHO.

The stage is set now for someone to make a serious move to consolidate this patent portfolio. Will it be AMD by acquisition, TPL by acquisition, INTEL by acquisition, or will it be a compromise position developed between TPL and PTSC to assign the IP into a joint-venture management group?

The shareholders meeting will be very interesting. IMO there will quite possibly be an unsolicited proxy regarding the Board of Directors by then... because some big new shareholder makes a play. Pure speculation on my part based entirely on the circumstances. There is clearly enough motivation for one of many possible firms to act, only a question of whether anyone will.

PTSC`s management may make a serious effort to find yet another law firm willing to take this case on a contingency basis with the purpose of winning 100% ownership. They can probably find some firm to try the case on contingency if they decide to look. That doesn`t mean the new firm would win though. If they go that route, then I presonally believe they have put their pride and greed above their business sense.

Subject: Let me ask .. why do you think PTSC wanted the TPL / Intel Licensing

From biajj

PostID 386447 On Tuesday, March 08, 2005 (EST) at 7:25:48 PM

Response To: Tolgasinan PostID 386443

------------------------------------...

Agreement ? The Court Order timeline has passed for PTSC to have received their copy.

Does anyone think PTSC would be willing to drop their Infringment action against Intel and their customers (Japanese 5, and whoever else), if they thought (or it was guaranteed) the Intel License would produce enough Royalty income, the Maintainance fees are high enough, and the Licensee free paid was great enough for PTSC and TPL to accept eachother and combine the Patent ownership halfs ?

Would PTSC consider sweetening the deal by providing TPL some of the AMD Royalties or Fees ?

Or, how about exchanging some of PTSC`s soon to be approved 100 Million shares with TPL for assigning their entire half including the Intel License to PTSC ?

Hopefully some provoking thoughts will drown out the silly remarks. Use your intelligence, you`ll make more money.