It sure is nice to see another theory posted!

I'm hoping that your attitude is as mine - that you solicit a response toward refining the theory or dismissing it. It looks like your theory boils down to this statement:

"Personally, IMHO, TPL is conducting an inventory of all the chips, their value, and forecasting of future use. This takes time, at least 2-3 months given the complexity. I believe an agreement has been reached whereby we will not see revenues booked until the end of May at the earliest."

While the proposition has merit, I do have one question and, coincidently, based on your past experience, you yourself are probably best equiped to answer.

Assuming your theory is correct, and assuming that RG/PTSC actually knows the terms of settlement, would not these pending receipts of income be known, absolutely, to be coming (regardles of amount)? Now, if that is the case, would PTSC have to report (10Q) this anticipated receipt of income (via a footnote or statement)? Something like: "Certain agreements entered require furture payments in yet-to-be-determined amounts to PDS, and ultimately to PTSC."

Now, if you say it must be reported in such fashion, your theory doesn't necessarily "fall apart" IMO. This is because I believe there is a decent chance that RG/PTSC do NOT know the terms that may be in the MOU (i.e., TPL is keeping the MOU very close to the vest due to the confidentiality concern - if it gets blown, the deal is blown, AND the Judge is pissed at US). In other words, PTSC has no obligation to report about anything that they down't know (an "ignorance is bliss" situation).

Please do provide an answer/opinion re: my questions above, and please comment, as appropriate re: the "ignorance-is-bliss" thing.

Thank you!

SGE