With all due respect, I think you should re-think your defense of these guys, or at least referring to a post of value from one of them to support your position. Based on your post, I`m assuming that you were making reference to this post by milestone:

``Shame it still states royalties from ``system-level`` product, eg Casio

``The MMP Portfolio Licensing Program therefore focuses licensing requirements and royalty collection on the finished ``system-level`` product. A royalty-free MMP Portfolio license is also available to manufacturers of chips and other unfinished goods.``

http://www.alliacense.com/licensing/mmpProgram.html

Who to believe?

Be well``

First, how sensical is THAT? It`s like he`s never thought about the word ``negotiation``. Whether they are intent on securing royalties from infringers at this time or not, they sure as heck don`t want to ``take things off the table`` in their stated licensing/royalty settlement approach for infringers to see. That post almost prompted a nasty reply from me, with words like ``idiotic`` in mind. Decided not to because it was sooo lame and transparent that most posters would see it as I did and ignore accordingly.

So why would he post such a thing?, ending with ``Who to believe?``?

I don`t want this to turn into a board where I have to go out of my way to sift through the ``ignorables``. And those intent on creating doubt (with silly substance) should be removed IMO.

SGE