The judge recently awarded Mr. Brown a certain sum of money

Now that is interesting. It is also more interesting that TPL appealed. Why the appeal? Don't want to start a precedent? Was the award for the loan? Or was it for the % of money due as a result of partial ownership? What was the judge's reasoning? That would be interesting to know IMO.

And further more, if that money from % of ownership (Chet received partial rights to TPL's licensing of the MMP) was awarded because of payments that were incomplete or co-mingled how would that effect other owners who are entitled to money from the MMP patents revenues?

Are there more than just the 3 patent owners besides PTSC, CM and TPL? Did TPL sell of shares/percentages? Did CM? What rights and knowledge do the other owners of the patents have? Besides the shareholders of PTSC would else directly or indirectly has rights to the licensing revenue of the MMP? And did they get paid correctly and honestly????!!!!!

If Chet got paid doesn't it make sense that PTSC could also get paid for the same reasons? No real answer for that because there are not enough facts (yet)!

Could this some how be news to come?