Look out, this turned into a long one. But worthwhile IMO.

While this approach does make some sense (R&D to extend life of the '148 - or a variation of that theme), we'd have to acquire a lot of brain power to make this happen, only to further work with - and wait for - the PTO. And look at what we'd be competing with.... Every established, well-funded R&D house in the world.

However, along these lines, please note that we have 7 more U.S. patents pending (not yet issued) under the MMP umbrella. Use the money to continue pushing those through the PTO process, along with more resources dedicated to more agressively enforcing our existing patents here and abroad (2 in Europe, 4 in Japan). This is what we're more equipped to do, based on something we already have (and will get). There are so many infringers out there.... IMO, this is where we should throw more money when there is more money to be thrown. There should be a lot of bang for the buck. **

Again, 7 more US patents pending. Kinda takes away the heartache of the '148 expiration (while still knowing that there are a large number of infringers that were notified and liable for past infringement of the '148 - six years to nail 'em).

** Would this be smarter than share buy-backs and/or dividends?

Would TPL cooperate, dedicating like funding? This is the big question.

I think we all lose sight of the enterprise we're (via Alliacense) engaged in - when you get down to it.

It's a treasure hunt, of the greatest imagineable magnitude.

Find infringer, assess infringer (potential license fee)/volume of infringement (revenues from infringing products), verify infringement, notify infringer, aggressively pursue infringer. Repeat a thousand times, probably more - if you have the resources.

The only restriction to the amount of treasure to be dug up is the amount of resources you are willing to dedicate to the endeavor. As long as the cost/benefit is in our favor, go after them! And over time, the cost should reduce (learning curve) enhancing the probability of a net benefit.

Bottomless pit of treasure, IMO. Seriously, how many companies, world wide, probably infringe the MMP?

I admit that this is a renewed realization, at least regarding the magnitude. Something I recognized long ago that got lost in the frustration of waiting.

Perhaps this is what direction shareholders should push the BoD toward. The only impediment would/could/might be TPL's willingless to cooperate (like funding) and the ability of Alliacense to execute on a far grander scale.

And here another admission: for all I know Alliacense is executing to the scale I suggest, or approaching that level. And perhaps the above is exactly the intent for Alliacense, with PTSC and TPL's consent, as more funding becomes available. A fellow Long recently voiced concern that (at the AMS) things were said about Alliacense/PDS withholding (not distributing to PTSC/TPL) a greater percentage of MMP proceeds to (probably) fund the efforts of Alliacense. So perhaps there is no need to push the BoD more in this direction because they are already pointed this way.

Did we ever get a solid picture (AMS) of the total number of infringers that have been notified? Or of how many candidate infringers that are possibly out there (not yet notified)? I know there were some breakdowns of infringers notified and categorized by the annual revenues - isolating where there is the biggest bang for the buck. Anyone have these breakdowns?

And where would the funding come from? IMO, once we overcome the current PTO hurdles, funding should not be an issue. With re-certs in hand the only other big impediment is overcome.....unarguable validity of the patents.

JMHOs and thoughts and questions and (dare I say it) optimism.

SGE