"... the costs associated with pursuing the customer licenses ..."

 

I'm not native english speaking, thus I'm not sure, if this phrase means, PTSC/TPLS have to "follow" the product and revenue streams to control, what the licensees produce and therefore have to pay? If yes, it would support the theory of royalties.

 

Anyway, there is no doubt to me, that the history of the last 30 months starting with the first license purchased by Hewlett Packard and followed by several financial and LEGAL milestones, which were all positive for our side, supports only one explaination for the Q3 numbers:

 

BTW: If you still believe, that the former CEOs of PTSC and the Leckrones DID NOT LIE about increasing license fees, then you have to take the next logic step and recognize, that it would be just prudent, clever and "business polite" to go to an infringing company and tell them:

'If you don't want to pay the license fee in ONE SUM, because it's killing your net profit this year, no problem, you can pay it on a quarterly or yearly base.'

 

IMO you have to offer this payment possibility, if you declare yourself as a "partner" for these companies.

Something TPL/PTSC have told the world from the beginning: They see this companies as customers and not as infringers.

 

GLTY