Interesting discussion.  While many things are possible, I too believe that (while there may be an incremental payment scheme in play) no concessions were given in the form suggested (full payment contingent on our USPTO successes on all patents).  The main reason I feel this way is because such a thing would be an "out" for the defendants, and they've already got one.

Remember the words "without prejudice" in the final court filings?  That's their (the defendants') "out".  If any patent under reexam fails through all tests (appeals), the door is open for re-initiation of litigation by the defendants.  That's their "out".  And I agree with Bill, the defendants probably paid dearly for this "concession", as it represents risk, however small, and their would be a (high) cost for permitting this dangling risk.

Likewise, I believe (as I've said before) that the defendants paid a high price for inclusion of the Confidentiality Clause.  They had to pay for our team's resultant inability to tout this success and the dollars involved.  It's a "what's it worth" issue.  What's it worth to lose the ability to broadcast a very fat settlement when trying to entice other infringers into licensing for a large amount of money?  What's it worth for TPL not to be able to demonstrate its credibility, when part of their business is that of defending the patent portfolios of others?  What's it worth for PTSC not to be able to proclaim some huge amount of "return on capital", and not enjoy the deserved PPS appreciation?  These things have a value; a very high value IMO.

I still hope we hear something more than expected (?) with the coming 10Q, specifically a aggregate number for income since the end of the last qtr.  A "bring us up to date" number as they've done in the past.  I'd even take what I've suggested previously, an "OVER $XXM" number - even if lower than reality but big enough to impress.

I strongly suspect that PTSC alone has received over $60M (absolute minimum) since the end of the last qtr., IMO.  What's killing me is that this low-ball number is so easy to figure out. 

The remaining Js NO WAY paid less than Fujitsu ($32M) each - so there's $100M divided by 2 = $50M.  The aggregate number for all other new licensees, if only $20M, would be an average of less than $3.5M each - $20M divided by 2 = $10M.  Yes, I'm ignoring legal costs, primarily because I believe that's already been paid.

So is this bare bones, easy to figure, low-ball number already factored into the PPS?  If so, what's our effective P/E?  I suspect this number has not been figured by the masses, so PLEASE PTSC, throw us that bare bone, preceeded by a "well over"!

All JMHOs and I KNOW nuttin'!

SGE