Thanks, but first off, a minor correction. Using the figures of $218,861,985 collected thru the Philips deal, and adding the $121,198,118, gives a total estimated license revenue collected to date of $340,060,103. This is collected from companies with annual revenues totalling approx. $562.2B. So based on that, the rate of license fee is about .0006% of the annual revenues. Granted, that's splitting hairs to a point, but I wanted to be accurate.

Considering, I think I'm reporting annual revenues total for these companies, not necessarily annual revenues generated from just their infringing products, you need to take that into account as well. I'm assuming if you include only the portion of revenues associated with JUST the infringing microprocessor technology used, the annual revenue numbers would be much less for each company, which would obviously skew that rate much higher.

As I don't know specifically what ARM, or Rambus, or other IP licensing companies charge and how you would boil our IP down to an apples to apples comparison, I'm not sure how we would compare, but I get your point that this may well be part of the problem and be reflected in the share price.

Perhaps, this can be an issue that PTSC/Turley can further expand on and from a PR standpoint, clarify. Perhaps from a PR standpoint, in the near future,Turley can distill the rates that we are collecting our fees on and compare them to the industry averages. I think that would be a valuable metric for displaying to the market our relative strength in compared to the rest of the IP licensing world. I only hope that once that information is presented in a comparable format, that we are at least close to or better than the industry average. From the department of be careful what you wish for, if they did clarify this, and we found out we're collecting only 25% of what everyone else does, it might hurt rather than help. lol.