Okay, it appears that at least we are in near agreement. But the original premise when I jumped in was that people were suggesting that PTSC was getting screwed via paying for costs associated with Alliacense's efforts to secure licenses for non-MMP patents portfolios. My point was this would not happen.

Most of your agrument in reply was correct, but when you began one para with "Alliacense is paid for a service. They do not have to dedicate staff exclusively to PTSC or TPL to remain legal.", that suggested to me that your opinion was that sense they merely provide a service, no costs would be segregated. When they do "dedicate staff", the costs will be charged accordingly.

Bottom line is that the accusations made by others, that PTSC is somehow getting screwed, are without merit. That was the point of my post. If anybody is getting screwed, albeit to a relatively small degree, because of shared (possibly proportioned based on projected value) overhead expenses, it is NOT PTSC. At least not to date.

BTW, my experience at Hughes/Raytheon is directly applicable. Standard Accounting Practices are just that - STANDARD.

Also, BTW, I never said "there were absolutely no shared costs". What I said was "And those simple-minded folks who believe that PTSC is paying penny one for efforts by Alliacense to license anything other than the MMP are nuts". Actual licensing effort. Not paying the water bill.

SGE