TPL uses when notifying an infringing target of their potential financial exposure. Aside from the Apple royalty rate debacle and some of those other events that we on this board were able to uncovered ourselves, I now more clearly understand why the MMP licensing program has had difficulties being cooperated with, and why I believe the good faith negotiations credibility of both TPL and Alliasence has been rightly questioned; and imo permenantly damaged.

In my opinion, unless genuine substantive changes are made to the method in which we notify and negotiate with prospective licensees, future MMP licensing efforts will likely continue to be marginalized, resisted or even confronted in Court.

I highly recommend that PDS, with authority as the appointed Licensor, revamp the method that future licenses are negotiated. I also suggest that Carl Johnston, as the Manager of PDS, find some arrangement to fill the "Independent" seat on the PDS Board with Mr Otteson, and to manage some accomodation whereby Otteson and not Alliasence would do more contact/negotiations; with Alliasence stepping back and providing mainly research, engineering and technical support. PDS was contractually constituted to have 3 BOD members, and by apparent agreement of the JV partners, TPL and PTSC mutually agreed to waive that provision. If PTSC refuses to continue to waive the 3 member requirement, TPL cannot prohibit the third seat from being filled by a mutually acceptable individual. Otteson just coming off the HTC win, and being our (hopefully future) legal muscle, would provide tremendous weight and efficency in being an actual entity in the Licensing team process, and not just be perceived as a hired gun at the point of threatened litigation.