Yesterday I proposed a "weekend activity" in which my "clues", IMO suggesting a contingency deal, would be stated and briefly addressed, with a very open invitation to all to provide alternate explanations. This proposition received zero response, at all, suggesting I not waste my time. It's either that or everyone has me on ignore - which may be justified!

I've decided to only hit on the few items I mentioned in that post - clues that are known to all and are "reality", at least on their face. Those items are:

Why the licenses to the Js?

Why the MOU?

Why the "without prejudice" on the Js?

Why the Confidentiality Clause?

Why the buying by the company/directors?

I'll spare you all and really try to keep this concise (a real challenge for me! LOL). If more detail is desired, you need only refer to my prior posts because I beleive I covered all these things in extreme detail previously.

Why the licenses to the Js?

As I recently opined, licenses had to at least be "granted" (however you want to interpret that word) in order for the case to be closed. It is a resolution. The only other possible "resolution" I can imagine would be for the case to simply be dismissed - it wasn't. This strongly implies, IMO, that there must be more.

Here I'll go a bit further with this thought. A License is a form of contract. For a contract to be valid, there must be "consideration" - some exchange of assets for product or services (or in this case, certain rights). A contract can be established, but not invoked until that later date certain, or upon some defined event. I'll just stop here - you guys can figure where I'm going.

Why the MOU?

In my limited experience with MOUs (mostly while working on the Space Shuttle program), MOUs (unlike MOAs) are not necessarily a "contract". They are what the name implies. The parties have documented an "understanding" that should some event occur, expected or not, certain things must happen in the mutual interest of the parties. Every MOU I was cognizant of had to do with forward-looking plans "in case this happens". Due to the argument I'm generally trying to make, I hestitate to use the word "contingency", but that was exactly what those MOUs were about - contingency planning - planning ahead for the uncertain, but possible - so interested parties are prepared in advance for expeditious response, again, in their mutual best interest (including blocking other parties out of the action). And typically, enclosed in those MOUs where citations for needs to establish actual contracts between the parties. I never saw one where the contemplated contract was pre-developed and enclosed - though I suspect this was due to the inability to forecast the magnitude of the "event" in advance, or the circumstances that may surround that event at the time at which it might occur. IMO, in our situation here, though the occurance of the event is not known (e.g., whether the patents will get a thumbs up or down by the USPTO), the contracts can be defined in advance, or "understood" to be not required beyond what may currently exist (the licenses, which may be rendered pointless - but were needed per the above).

Why the "without prejudice" on the Js?

This one is a real poser. But I think I do have a reasonable explanation. On the surface, one must ask "if the Js paid little or nothing, what could they use this stipulation for?". One thought is so that, in the case of a "negative for us" event/prompt, the then-useless granted license could be extinguished and a motion for the case to be changed to "dismissed" properly submitted. The other thought, though I've dismissed it it prior posts, is so that the defendants/Js could file for recovery of legal costs. This "hit me late", but when you consider what we paid in litigation costs and the probability that each of the Js paid more, this amount could be substantial - $30-50M. Now, unless there is some "event" hanging out there, why would this stipulation be made? Enough on this....

Why the Confidentiality Clause?

IMO, the Js demanded it - for reasons too obvious to mention. Here I'll add, sense it hits "clues" previously addressed in other posts but not here, that I believe that a component of the CC is that PTSC (the reporting company) must act to adequately disguise numbers in their (eventual) reporting such that monies received from the Js cannot be isolated/determined.

Some suggest that TPL/PTSC demanded it. On the surface, this sounds reasonable in that if there had been a totally negative outcome for our team, our team wouldn't want to disclose this to the world (of potential future licensees). But here one must ask, supposing that the patents were determined, through court sanctioned activities, to be invalid or even not infringed by these defendants, whether the court/JW would "enable" TPL/PTSC to essentially scam other corporations into buying licenses for bogus patents, or where actual infringement may be highly questionable. It just seems to me that there would be a tremendous level of vulnerability for the court/JW in permitting such activity, actually encouraging it. Could you imagine the headlines "Federal Judge Endorses Scams"?

Why the buying by the company/directors?

Why indeed. Almost never happened before (once - Polh's wife?). Yes, the company has. But if things turned out (of TX) as some "promote", wouldn't this act seem extremely odd? Optimism about our future because of what, specifically? Now compare our current circumstance with the past - when our PPS was lower and the future, in everyone's eyes based on what everyone knew/expected, was truly brighter than it appears today. Why indeed.

I must add one thing. Some on this board have said that they are fairly/extremely certain that there is no more coming from the Js. To this I say "read the letter from RG after the 10Q". Yup, it is implied. That is unless payment was for any reason deferred or, dare I say, contingent on some future event.

JMHOs, and I KNOW nuttin'!

I invite rebuttal. PLEASE! If I am wrong or my little arguments are flawed or make no sense, TELL ME! I have no fear of being wrong - been there too many times to get all worked up about it. And I will not be offended - unless you get unnecessarily nasty! LOL

Some may suspect I have some grand "agenda". My only agenda is to get more comfortable with the conclusions I've drawn - to get a real sanity check from the only people capable of providing it (short of holding a gun to RG's head! - which I have no intention of even considering).

Respectfully to all,

SGE