<Can't reach 65 without inlcuding the J3, and ALL are "MMP Licensees". Per the 10q's, PDS enters into "License Agreements", and recognizes revenue when it enters into those agreements.>

I don't believe anyone is arguing that the J2, for which there is an MOU, were granted a license. The settlement pr says so. Hence, they are presently licensees.

But it seems some here assume that the money received from the settlement is money for the granted license. Others disagree that is the case and is the reason for the grant terminology.

I'm assuming that settle money and license money are two separate things. Also money resulting from litigation settlements would be disbursed same as license money, going through PDS and reported by PTSC on the same line as the other revenue received from PDS.

The master agreement clearly anticipates both settlement money as well as license money and both are included in the agreement. Hence, just because we received money from the settlement, I don't think there is any way to determine if, indeed, it was license money, or settlement money, or both. But then there's that grant thing.

All IMHO

Opty