Just to be clear, I do NOT rule out your interpretation, I simply discount it's likelihood based on the information we do have. So I am on board that there is a remote (even MORE optimistic than "remotest" lol) possibility of additional revenues from the J's on any number of contingencies, or other arrangements. So don't assume that I don't think there is.

As for the Feb licenses, based on Hawks response that we shouldn't infer that the Feb licenses are excluded, I suppose there's a possibility that they actually ARE in the 10q. Based on the way I've questioned PTSC, I've "inferred" that they aren't, informing them in writing that since they want us to infer things instead of them answering questions directly, then without a correction to my inference, they have officially answered that they Feb Licenses are not included. As to why they would NOT be in the 10q, I think it's likely that the reason is no different than the TEAC deal from the quarter before. It was announced well before Q2 ended but not included in the Q2 10q, for revenue recognition issues. No explanation or revenue due lineitem was included in that 10q, so why do you expect anything in this 10q based on that.

As for the change of venue, I don't think $22.75M is a miserable failure. I do think that IF that is around the amount that was settled for, it was for a strategic reason that gave TPL/PTSC an advantage in their overall strategy while bringing in much needed funds to prosecute that strategy. The Texas venue HAS been very favorable to them, even if the dollars were less than ideal.

As for the MOU, I've postulated that there could well be an agreement that left out the 584 for now, and that based on the ARM stipulation and appeal, brings in additoinal funds based on the appeal and final resolution of that issue. Maybe that's what the MOU is about. At least THAT issue was something tied to these proceedings, and that is unresolved, and a good reason for JW to remain in an oversight role. Who knows. My point is that the MOU can certainly have other reasons than a contingency tied to USPTO, and litigating something to the courtroom steps, only to settle it on an unknown contingency that is outside of the purvue of the entities involved in the litigation to begin with seems dumb lawyering in my book. At least the 584 theory ties the litigants to something they are involved in and that TPL/PTSC has some control over.

I don't think accepting that the J3 settlement brought in less than WE expected is being pessimistic. Since we don't know the formulas used to develop the licensing fees, it could well be that for these particular infringers and their product line, it turned out they in fact infringed less and TPL/PTSC actually got a good amount for what they actually do infringe on.

As for the motives of pessimists as you characterize them, or optimists as you characterize yourself, if you are prepared to question their motives so suspiciously, then I think you should be prepared to have your motives questioned as suspiciously if you turn out to be wrong. Don't you think? That has to go both ways. If you're implying their motive is to depress the price in the face of probable good news, then you have to be prepared to accept that they can look at your arguments (which I certainly characterize as vigorous - not as an insult to you but as a compliment) as an attempt to keep the price elevated in the light of probable bad news (as I think you will admit that even though you say it would be a win, you really see the idea of the J's already having paid all in as being - and hence the puropse of my original question).