"I'm not even sure that the Company believes it is required to announce licensing deals anymore."

No need for your uncertainty. If we are to believe their PR's, it is CLEAR from the MMP Licensing PR's that neither PTSC nor Alliancense/TPL are announcing all of the licensing deals.

For example, Caterpillar was heralded as the 70th overal MMP license. And if you look at the Alliacense PR for the Cummins license, you'll note that "Eighty global companies from the US, Europe, Japan, Korea and Taiwan have licensed the MMP Portfolio™ technologies".

Obviously, that means that 10 licenses were signed between Caterpillar and Cummins, however, PTSC or Alliacense has only announced 5 of them. I suppose there could be confidentiality reasons for not announcing some of them, but it seems odd that for 70 licenses, there were no such issues, but all of a sudden for the last 10 licenses, 50 percent of them now require confidentiality. When you couple that with the relatively insignificant license fees collected during that time, you have to really wonder.

The question is, WHO is requiring the confidentiality, them or US?! Seems that if licensing fees structures were escalating as the company told us time and again, and that with the USPTO re-exams eliminating the questions of validity, it would be a strong bargaining tool to publicize the resultant successful ESCALATED license fees. Perhaps that kind of FACTUAL marketing is a foreign concept to those handling the MMP licensing.