Perhaps you misunderstand. The annual revenue to license fee metric is my own invented attempt to provide an analyzable metric with which to understand the licensing activity. I've always admitted it's limitation and inaccuracies, and that it's only strength is in the loose association that a company that deals mainly in electronics, would have infringing products that corrolate in some measure to the revenues they generate. Obviously, a company that sells 500,000 Big Screen TV's for $1000/ea with only one microprocessor that infringes is going to generate much more revenue than a company that sells 500,000 little $5 handheld video games that use that same single chip.

Additionally, infringers that are negotiating will know much better than you and I could ever hope to, where their product offerings fall with respect to their competitors in ways that relate to the MMP. They're not going to argue that a $30B jet making company only paid X when TPL's asking them, a $3B consumer electronic company to pay 10X, as a defense against paying the fee.

If you took that so literally, please excuse the limitations of my prose that kept you from making those logical conclusions.

The larger point is that if you as a business manager are going to willingly and easily pay license fees based on a demand, without knowing what the true market is and has been for the product, then I think you'll be short lived in your position.

I assume as you do, that infringement is being charged based on reverse-engineered evidence of infringment and some multiplier or multiplers particular to that industry/product type. After 4 years of doing it, that this multiplier(s) is still a "state secret" ultimately implies a weakness in their negotiating position, that has yet to be fully overcome IMO. In response to eases desire for 10 licenses a month at $10M average, it is in that context that I say we're not quite there yet strength wise.