While people seem to be applying the "upfront AND future payments" language to ALL THREE licenses, there's nothing in the PR that states that all three licenses are structured the same. It simply states that the "increasing rates" have made one lump sum payment too expensive for SOME companies. That can just as easily mean that one of the companies paid a one-time lump sum fee IN FULL, and the other two (or "some") chose to go the on-going royalty route. That TPL is characterizing it (PTSC left that part out of the PR) as due to the escalating costs doesn't make it FACT just yet, in MY mind anyway, since they have been guilty of such talk before while the actual reported facts showed otherwise AFTER the comments were made.

Obviously, I suspect this time is different, but the "burn me once, shame on you, burn me twice, shame on me," etc. etc. etc. rule applies in my opinion until the PROVE otherwise. That PROOF can come as early as next Tuesday in PTSC's 10q subsequent events section, IF they CHOOSE to do so. If not, with the understanding that fees are ESCALATING, ie CONTINUING to rise, one would have to ask why WOULDN'T PTSC/TPL want infringers to know the new escalated baseline fees.