Q: Regarding the settlement reached between Patriot and the TPL Group in October 2011, why were further details not released regarding the settlement terms?

A: In order for Patriot and TPL to reach a settlement, it was necessary to agree that certain aspects of the settlement for which disclosure was not otherwise required remain confidential. Confidentiality was not our preference, however settling on terms that we believed to be favorable to the interests of Patriot’s shareholders was our priority and we believe that we achieved that goal despite our inability to share some of the other details.We hope that by settling we have removed one obstacle faced by the license program.

Q: There were many serious claims levied against TPL by Patriot.How can Patriot simply abandon these claims without moving forward with the litigation?

A: We considered several factors in deciding to settle with TPL, including the significant cost and duration of litigation, the remainder of the MMP Portfolio’s patent lives and the disruption to the licensing program.Although no settlement is perfect, we believed that the achievements afforded by the settlement were in the best interest of the licensing program and therefore Patriot’s shareholders.

Q: Now that Patriot has settled with TPL, why aren’t there more MMP license announcements?

A: While we believe that by settling we have removed a significant obstacle faced by the license program, we also believe the licensing program is influenced by several factors, some of which are more fully described in the Risk Factors section of our annual report on Form 10-k for the year ended May 31, 2011 and the quarterly report on Form 10Q for the period ended August 31, 2011.We encourage the investing public to review these risk factors.

From the 1st amended complaint

As such, it has and does continue to this date to experience a substantial “burn” which has rendered it insolvent.Patriot is informed and believes that TPL owes third parties in excess of $30 million.

Patriot (at TPL’s request) agreed to reduce the parties’ commitments under the terms of the PDS Operating Agreement to otherwise continuously maintain $8 million in capital.Also at TPL’s request, Patriot did not require PDS to make capital calls on its members

Rather than accepting and expressing gratitude for relief from those obligations, TPL continued to seek funds from Patriot to support non MMP activities and its extraordinary overhead. Patriot has now refused to continue to support TPL financially any more than is legally required.

TPL’s response has been to threaten to shut down the licensing program.Further to try to coerce Patriot to loan it more money, TPL has focused on a new strategy of improperly diverting licensing revenue to itself through its licensing division Alliacense, contrary to its authority under the ComAg

Furthermore, when asked why there have been no license announcements since the settlement, they refer the investing public (what investing public?) to the copy and pasted risk factors found in every quarterly report.

The details were probably not given because shareholders would be more pissed off than they are now.

What a joke.

(emphasis and bolds by me)