What "splaining" do I need to do? Laurie's post suggests that PDS absorbed the cost of non-MMP licensing. There is really no basis for this suggestion. I strongly suspect that there is a "PDS-like" entity in place for each of the patent portfolios TPL/Alliacense represents, performing the exact same functions for those other patent owners as PDS performs for us. There is no issue here. There is no evidence of wrongdoing.

Let's put it this way: the resolution (ii) requires that any future non-MMP licensing must bundled with an MMP license. Why would any party to the resolution want to do this if there were a suspicion of impropriety? Especially from the view of Johnson.

Read the resolutions. Try to understand what they say.

SGE