"..... to "look to the future", there must be a solid foundation in existence. IMO, PTSC does not have that foundation, and such has been evident for quite some time now."

After having just written a novel, I'll keep this short and sweet:

Are the stronger, recertified patents not a solid foundation?

Are you suggesting that, in your opinion, TPL has the upper hand in the current dispute?

Also, regarding the "related royalty-sharing scheme", a 50/50 split is implied. As I noted, this was not the article/document that I was recalling from the deep, dark past. I suspect that the document I'm recalling was the source from which the article Leopard so kindly posted was derived. My recollection is that it cited "with PTSC receiving 50% of net licensing revenues". The bottom line here is that the offer initially refused by PTSC was not just for $7.5M.

SGE