Step back for a moment and take a deep breath! lol

You need to stop and think about what you're writing. I guess you're correct in assuming that I don't understand what you mean about currently, because the way you look at it, you must either mean this particular day, or the past week, or perhaps between the hours of 9 am and 3 pm last Thursday! lol

Without me bringing up the "investor relation communication" issue again, REALIZE that you're referencing a comment from a shareholders report from the annual meeting as the support for your point. Sure would be a lot easier if the company put out a transcript, or officially communicated what took place at the meeting now wouldn't it. Gloria's private e-mail wasn't quite as helpful as she seems to imply. Now, keep in mind that the meeting took place on 1/28/10. Also, the last 10q reported PDS MMP revs of $8.7M for the 3 mos prior with expenses of $1.2M. That's 86% "profit" for PDS to distribute. That's the most "CURRENT" offficial report.

Furthermore, between 11/30/09 and the shareholder meeting, there were NO LICENSES sold!!! So I guess you DO need to explain "currently", at least as you are using it! Did whoever the speaker was mean the period from the last 10q to the shareholder meeting date when there were no license fees collected? I suppose at that point the percentages EXCEEDED 100% for Alliacence costs, lol. Did he mean the actual period that the meeting was held since expenses of Leckrone's attendance were taking place without much actual license revenue coming in? Please clarify.

If by currently you mean SINCE the meeting, then it would be difficult for the speaker to know that, wouldn't it? Since that time, Blue Coat, Caterpillar, Optima, Leica Camera and Arcelik have signed deals. Are you trying to state that during this busy signing and REVENUE GENERATING period, that more Alliancense and Outside Legal expenses are being run up than during the period around the Texas settlement? Be careful, because if that IS what you're saying, then that thinking jeopordizes the idea of INCREASING LICENSE RATES AND ROYALTY fees that we've heard so much about.

According to your thinking, signing more licensees is actually going to lead to less profits because of the added licensing load. Who knows how much these most recent batch of licenses signed for, but if it's anywhere near the average to date, there could be over $20M in licensing fees for this quarter. You're arguing that somehow they've spent $5M to $10M in Alliacense costs in the last month and a half, when the most expensive quarter to date was naturally the J3 litigation period and that was around $10M for the quarter (I didn't go back and check but that's from memory).

To conclude the thought process, if they need a bunch more Alliacense cost to license "en masse" as you say, but it's now going to cost us 60% to 80% of the license fees generated instead of the 16% historical average, then I think we'd be better off to sell the MMP outright. I don't think even our BOD is that dumb to now be paying 60% to 80% for what we've only had to pay 16% for in the past.

So, I don't think anyone conspired to lie to you. Rather, I thnk you've not quite thought out your argument, or exactly what the point is that you're trying to make, as there is little data to support you or logic in your thought process.......currently.