If you were a $3B company, and you look at the roster of licensees that includes a company who got away with $290K while being 10 times larger than you, why would you be eager to step up and pay $10M if you aren't SURE that the fees have actually gone up or by how much.

This appears to be a very simplistic mistake to make in associating company size to percentage of infringement.

That's why, IMO, it makes no sense to play coy any longer with the license fee amounts, UNLESS, their bark is still worse than their bite on what they've actually been able to get companies to pay

All the more reason to be "coy" and negotiate a license fee on actual infringement usage and not company size if only to prevent the "they only paid " argument.

I'm sure that Alliacense don't just pluck a dollar amount out of thin air and present that to potential infringers without having the reverse-engineered evidence to justify the figure given.

Surely, the "true strength" you seek will follow an increase in the rate of licensing, rather than just the fee figures?

.

.

Be well