There is NO dispute as to PTSC's ownership of the patents.
Moore has stated,
I've agreed not to interfer with the licensing program. And I certainly don't intend to
Apart from the co-ownership dispute of the MMP Portfolio between Moore and TPL which, as stated, has no impact on PTSC's beneficial rights, there exists a dispute about the S40 chip,
My Agreement with TPL includes Section 6 of Exhibit C, as amended:
6. Implement the following development Programs:
a. The design, development and commercialization of Array-Processor Technology and such other products based thereon as appear to be economically viable and/or otherwise desirable (the "Array Program").
That led to what was the SEAForth Project and what is the S40 chip.
Our verbal agreement was that Leckrone and I would share expenses and revenues 45/55%. Never did we agree that Leckrone would own the Project or S40. He claims he does and acts like he does: he micromanaged the project; he fired the employees; he confiscated the inventory; he disposed of lab equipment. All without consulting me, reimbursing me or obtaining my consent.
He does own some IP, a portfolio of Array Patent applications. But I own S40. I designed the chip and provided 55% of its development cost. I own the IP of the design and of the tools that created it. He can do nothing without my support, which he has thrown away.
So I will not conceal the existence of a chip of which I'm proud. I'm dismayed that this wonderful chip may not see the market. The unpackaged inventory is deteriorating while in Leckrone's possession. He fired the people who could provide technical assistance and further development. He is wasting yet another of his investments
which again has no impact on PTSC's patents ownership.
The current updated version(Updated 2009 April 4),
http://www.colorforth.com/
has no mention of the breakdown on what Mr Moore believes he is owed ie 25% of $260,000,000 - the stated gross revenues from licensing the MMP Portfolio. As shown in a prior post, PTSC's net share was $96,739,000, pre tax.
On this basis, I believe that his claimed $65,000,000 share takes no account of licensing expenses, USPTO costs, and tax. There will be further expenses not accounted for in the PTSC 10K's for ongoing negotiations since May 2008. It is understood that Leckrone has offered $6,000,000 to the $25m and $10m allowed for by Mr Moore in his breakdown,
My audit of TPL has documented MMP revenue of $260M. My 25% would be $65M. Deducting $25M for SEAForth expenses leaves $40M of which I've been paid $10M. So $30M is unaccounted for. I conclude that TPL owes me at least $20M of which he admits to $6M
and I therefore humbly suggest that the subsequent $41m figure closely approximates the post-tax revenues of PTSC, ie a net revenues figure of $160,000,000 should have been used in calculating the percentages.
(Please note that the $160m figure is illustrative only and for the sole purpose of showing how a simple mistake may have been made).
As Alliacense have been charged with licensing the MMP Portfolio and with Mr Moore stating his intent not to interfere with the process, does it really matter, in law, who owns the disputed 25%?
My opinion, for what it's worth, is a categorical NO.
If Mr Moore wasn't going to fully co-operate in the re-examination process, why assign his rights to the MMP Portfolio into a Trust for which he is beneficial owner?
Be well
