Toshiba Holding Company's annual revenues are approx $60B!

Matsushita Electric and related companies (JVC, Panasonic, etc.) annual revenues are about $80B!

Taking the companies that have signed to date that have revenues at those comparable levels we have:

Nokia at about $53B - Paid estimated $20.9M

Sony at about $65B - Paid estimated $10M

Fujitsu at about $44B - Paid $31.6M

HP at about $90B - Paid $26.4M

Intel at about $37B - Paid $20M

As it seems safe to say that comparatively, all of these companies are similar in nature to Matsushita and Toshiba in their product offerings. Furthermore, it's likely that their level of infringement is similar (or higher considering they wanted to litigate) to these companies. Taking it one step further, since they make/sell similar products, and their revenues are on a similar scale, I'll generalize, and say that at least from an order of magnitude, their infringement level will be similar in ratio to these other companies, ie, their license fees (had they not pushed the litigation) would have been similar to the average of these others.

Therefore, for the purpose of analysis, combining the revenues of these five companies that DID sign, TPL/PTSC got about $109M for infringing products that generated $289B in annual revenues. This is the equivalent of $0.000377 per $1.00 of revenue earned by these five rather large relatively similar companies.

So by extension, had Matsushita agreed to an early mover discount signing, it seems reasonable, that they would have been expected to pony up $0.000377 x $80B or at least $30.2M. Similarly, Toshiba would pay $0.000377 x $60B or at least $22.6M.

Now, since these pr!cks refused to sign, and instead decided to fight, I would hope TPL/PTSC would tack on at least a 50% premium to their "settlement" amounts just for the hassle. That would bump their respective "fees" up to $45.3M and $33.9M. Additionally, I assume the lawyers ain't cheap, so tack on another 15% to cover their pro bono work (lol), and you get $52.1M and $39M.

Granted this analysis is flawed in that we can't really judge level of infringement directly from revenues, but averaging five large signers, I think helps mitigate that issue a bit and make it a bit more applicable. Also, I've left out the remaining NEC factions as I'm not sure how to breakdown their revenues separate from the NEC that is licensed. In any case, I expect the NEC portion to be probably no more than half of Toshiba's and maybe even less. I'll throw $15M at it.

Lastly, I suspect TPL/PTSC will lean towards leniency in the settlement talks rather than exacting every dime. I think they're more interested in calling this a big win and moving forward with all the other 380 on-notice companies, than squeezing every drop from the remaining J3 and prolonging things. For these resaons, plus the seemingly universal issue that we retail investors ALWAYS always seem to over estimate deals and other financial results (not just PTSC, but seems to be true on almost all companies I've ever been a shareholder in) I think it is likely that the settlements will be lower than most think. Therefore I think it's important to be conservative in approaching numbers like these.

Based on this analysis, and for these other reasons, I'll predict, if in fact settlement talks are in the works, the total settlements will be in the range of $105M to $120M TOTAL, with $16M to $18M going to legal fees, and PTSC ending up with about $45M to $51M to the bottom line as their share.

This is lower than I had hoped for and I know much lower than many here have predicted, but I think it's realistic, and it provides PTSC with a nice chunk of change to move forward with, and more importantly, opens the flood gates to all the other signers that have been waiting pending the outcome of the trial/settelment. That being said, I think it has some merit in that it is based on revenue numbers that translate to some extent to the number of infringing products. I hope that TPL/PTSC has set the bar higher, and can get there, but if they do, I'll look at it as icing on the cake.