So I have to explain what I mean by "current"? Are you kidding me? Well, gee whiz, since the discussion was at the AMS, presumeably when they were addressing their intent going forward, I think it's pretty reasonable to suspect that they meant from that day forward. I believe it was an announcement of a policy shift toward directing more resources to Alliacense. Now, was that THAT tough to figure out? The content of the above was expressed in my earlier posts, exactly. And if YOU thought about for a while you might have been able to figure this out for yourself. After all, your sitting there spewing numbers clearly indicating the "current" didn't mean earlier time frames - you're proofing the point. But can't quite put it together? Yep, you made me step back for a minute! But I'm breathless!

And if you read my earlier posts, you may have picked up on the post where I agreed that they preferably should have had a Web cast of the meeting, and put out a complete transcript for viewing at the PTSC site. Particularly the latter. I did say that they (obviously) didn't have to do either of those things, but that they should have at least done the transcript. Why do I have to remind?

"According to your thinking, signing more licensees is actually going to lead to less profits because of the added licensing load."

Do you understand the concept of "ramping up", in a business sense? My take from what I've read and been told is that the intent is to dedicate more resources to Alliacense. To me, that sounds like ramping up to produce more results at a fast clip. It's usually, in business, done in anticipation of demand. Now, I must again say that I've said all of this several times today, without the term "ramping up" - hopefully that helps. To me "dedicate more resources" means ramp up.

To further respond to that rather insulting sentence, do you understand business at all? Front loading in anticipation of demand. That mean anything to ya? To be clear, my strong suspicion as to their intent is to fund Alliacense with the capability to maximize return on the MMP at a stampede pace from here on out (or from the date of a positive PTO event on out). When the work is done, or nearly completed (e.g., identifying infringing products produced by companies of adequate significance justify the effort), expenditures will scale back accordingly. When? Who knows - they probably don't know yet. Probably until a scale back makes sense - diminishing returns and such. The other influencing factor is revenues. With confidence of continued revenues, and some great revenues flowing, it's hard to believe they'd still NEED to dedicate 80%. It comes down to dollars. How many dollars can you throw at Alliacense EFFECTIVELY. Thus this policy is probably in place until respectable revenues are flowing consistently (which may not take that long).

What the above, and this whole "80% to Alliacense" thing signals is their a expectation for near term resolution of at least one PTO issue, and a full court press to notify, coordinate with, and secure licenses from a large number of infringers (including those in the pipeline). Perhaps I'm reading the tea leaves wearing rose-colored glasses, but that's how it comes across to me. And really, isn't that what we're all expecting, or at least hoping for, with a final re-cert of the '336?

The other thing it signals is their recognition that the MMP won't last forever. They will have to go for the gusto while they can, and not just for past infringement.

I must apologize, apparently, because I said virtually all of the above earlier, but I'll accept responsibility for poor communication skills. If you honestly didn't "get" my messages, or see things that from my view are obvious, it's not your fault. I recognize that when I write, I think I'm being exceedingly clear (that's one reason for my dangerously long posts). Any easy conclusion for the one doing the writing. So I also apologize for my "flabbergasted" tone.

SGE