I apologize if you were asking for advice, it sure seemed like you were redirecting a simple question. The question was a simple yes/no whether it's a win, in YOUR OPINION, if PDS received $20-$25M from the settlements, under the parameters of that being all they'll get. Thank you for your answers this time, as while they don't answer the $20M to $25M parameter question specifically, they in essense answer the question I asked.

With that said, though the rest of your post that breaks down my question is off base. As you should know from all of my postings (unless you don' read them, which I can understand as even I get tired on some of my longer posts, lol) I believe if you want to AVERAGE license fees, you can't do so on a company basis, you have to do so on a company's annual revenue basis, as IMO all companies are not equal. As the link I referenced in my last post showed, I had estmated about $92M for the quarter, with all the licenses before March 1 included. As apparently, you didn't click on the link, I'll repost a condensed version of that here, and eliminate the Feb licenses, hopefully to more clearly show where I get $20M to $25M for you.

First though, I'll clarify for you that PDS earned $27.9M last quarter in fees and for the quarter, they had $2.7M in expenses. MMP licensing is a PDS reported item, NOT a PTSC reported item, so looking at PTSC's equity earnings from PDS, is NOT reflective of the MMP Licensing efforts, but only of PTSC's "dividend' from it.

So, taking into account $27.9M in MMP licensing, and removing MY estimate based on HISTORICAL AVERAGES, of $5.15 from the other 8 licensees, that leaves $22.75M in license fees to have come from the 4 settlement licenses. So, why you decided to turn all that into the J's paying $1M each, I'm not sure, but to me at least, my "assumed" parameters for the question make PERFECT sense. Based on those parameters, I'm "inferring" your answer as it's a win, in your opinion.

As for not one person stepping up to argue your clues, that's NOT accurate. I have done so a number of times. The BIGGEST clue I have offered in rebuttal, is that the CEO of the company, in his FIRST post SEC Filing letter to the shareholders, when OUT OF HIS WAY to indicate that the 10q included ALL LICENSES THROUGH END OF JANUARY. That to me is a BIG CLUE that my point is more correct than yours. He didn't HAVE to qualify it in this or any way, but he went out of his way TO QUALIFY it this way. I'm taking the CEO at is word, taking into account his deliberate inclusion of that language, and in the context of the company's to-date stated one-time payment scheme, for him to say this, but mean something different, would open him up to liability of intentionally misleading the market.