Responses:

1) Maybe, maybe not. How's TPL's cash flow? Need cash - get it quick. If not, allow the contingency deal.

2) No, I don't believe this "mechanism" was used previous to the Js (which is my conjecture). But, having been in Contracts, I KNOW that once an approach is used (precedent), it's fair game to use it again and again (the arguing over the wisdom is done).

Now, TPL incentive? - MONEY. Such a deal eliminates risk for the licensee. That comes with a cost - possibly exponential over a deal involving risk.

Now, think of this; how do you think TPL managed to sign 7 new licensees in such a short time after Jan? (and keep in mind that it's reasonable to assume that the licensees signed in Jan were "left overs" from the prior contracting - pay now - approach).

All JMHOs.

Now think of this: assuming what I suggest is going is, in reality, what is going on contracting wise (contingency deals), what does this tell us about TPL's confidence in successful re-exams? Here, keep in mind that there may have been an "event" in meetings with the USPTO that bolstered TPL's confidence - thus "permitting" the new approach.

Again, JMHOs, and I KNOW nuttin'!

SGE