The "intanglement" isn't as deep as you suggest. TPL is independent, PTSC is independent, PDS only has to have the ability to divide by two and cut checks. The concern, if there really is one, is with Alliacense.

With Alliacense, the "intanglements" may run deeper than you suggest. The "worry" is whether costs incurred in their myriad of activity are properly allocated to the benefitting entities. They represent five licensing activities/benefitting entities: MMP, CoreFlash, FastLogic, 3DArt, and ChipScale. There has been "overlap" in licensing the MMP and FastLogic. Segregation of costs is not rocket science.

CoreFlash is owned by OnSpec

FlashLogic is owned by Thunderbird Technologies Inc.

3DArt is owned by Dr. Adrian Sfarti

ChipScale is owned by ChipScale Inc.

I'm open to correction if the above is somehow incorrect (taken from Alliacense Web site), or if any of these is actually owned by TPL. I do suspect that rights have been assigned by these entities to TPL with an accompanying Master Agreement similar to what we hold. TPL and each entity probably split revenues as do we.

Now, don't you think each and every one of these entities would share the exact same concern re: allocation of costs? If PTSC (and TPL) were somehow "overcharged" for costs incurred, who benefits? One of these other entities? How would this be in TPL's best interest? Wouldn't any mis-directed costs, from TPL's perspective, just be robbing peter to pay paul - with no net benefit to TPL?

See why I just don't get why people get so worked up about this? Easy accounting, multiple entities watching, no direct benefit to TPL for charging one entity rather than another (no incentive); wrongdoing and the whole thing comes unglued, and TPL is out of business.

FWIW,

SGE