I'm just not sure I agree the RIMM signing is a Watershed Event. We have numerous companies in our portfolio that are more than happy to litigate when challenged. I understand what your getting at and hope your right but I will remain a Doubting Thomas until proven otherwise. I certainly see the value of them signing but you don't have to convince me. The challenge is to convince all those skeptical investors who just viewed, in their minds, a less than stellar Q based solely on the idea that license values are increasing. If it's a matter of sharing the USPTO material with other patent lawyers how would you explain the low settlements? More importantly how would you explain the implication from our CEO that what you see is what you get?

There are arguments that licensees are awaiting the USPTO decisions prior to licensing, RIM has disproved that theory ie they have fully reviewed ALL options and determined that a license now is the best solution. This is not a "mom and pop" operation, but a significant player which knows every trick in the proverbial book. The message is loud and clear to the rest of the market: LICENSE. Ergo the WATERSHED EVENT.

What we see is what PDS got, not what it might get, and therein lies the difference. The assumption is that a licensee pays on signing, but if one reads the 10Q, License proceeds of $2,920,000 relating to an additional license agreement signed in February 2007 were received in March 2007, this is not necessarily so. Further, if the fees have yet to be determined, for whatever reason, they can't be reported.

I was also expecting higher figures in the 10Q based solely on the anticipation of ALL prior licensing being included in the total. If it has been, then so be it, but for a court to retain oversight of an MOU indicates that there is more to come.

Be well