No problem....  And I have no problem when people ask questions in earnest. But even Ron said the question or thought was "ludicrous".  What may have set me off more was the goofy math that accompanied the bad premise. And, in my post to you, I did want to reiterate the "intent" thing. Based on what we KNOW (or think we know) about the big Fish story, there may be room for arguments based on the intent of the parties at the time the contract/agreement was signed. It appears the language of the agreement is pretty tight....but I saw nothing specific about "all or none" or whether Fish would be entitled to anything if PTSC didn't at least come out on top (and PTSC did not; 50-50 on the licenses, but PTSC's identity is not overly prevailent in PRs, TPL has control, and it ain't the "Fish Clock" but instead the MMP - the latter suggesting that Fish's contribution may not have been too great).

The only other thing/escape I can see is the question as to Fish's actual participation/contribution - did he do anything, do a little, do a lot, did he add any "value" to PTSC's arguments, did he subvert (recalling that Fish and PTSC have a history)? These things we simply don't KNOW.

In any case, 10% ain't a killer, and, again, for Fish to get his full payout, PTSC would have to bring in a cool billion.

I would bet that, understanding the above, the formation of Alliacense and the another entity (the name escapes me) benefits PTSC as PTSC incurs no (fewer) direct legal fees. So Fish, if successful should get 10% of whatever PTSC gets (the legal expenses having been borne by that other entity, and not directly by PTSC). Just a thought....

SGE