Since it seems the "long form" you're referring to may be a long time from coming, I'd not necessarily want to wait for that to happen. That being said, this PR shouldn't be hastily put together just to get it out.

While I do think it should be forthcoming much sooner than later, what you and Brian point out, and that I was trying to convey as well, is that this is a significant opportunity for PTSC to capture the moment and convey a multi faceted message that "resets" if you will, the MMP message. One that not only communicates the current strengths of the MMP, but the current status of the MMP licensing program as well, with benchmarks of where we are today (ACTUAL total license numbers & aggregate fees collected) and number of companies engaged and at risk. And even if only in aggregate, metrics for those companies that in the future, based on how near term future licensing progresses and values are revealed through the filings, would offer a more concrete base on which "reasonable" licensing fee projections could be made going forward.

Afterall, if the company remains in a mode that "we get the most that we can get" rather than some actual real and publicizable per infringement unit fee structure that legitimizes the MMP, then it not only lends credence to the "patent troll" perception, but it also leaves them in a position of no accountabilty as there is no way to really measure if the successes they do have are above or below the performance line. It would seem that with multiple apparent Markman Ruling wins and a litany of successful USPTO re-exams, there should be no reason that the MMP shouldn't bring a known fee per infringement unit, provided the infringement is proven either through licensing or litigation.