Okay, heregoes:

My understanding is that PTSC and TPL have assigned their respective rights to the MMP to PDS for enforcement of the patents. It is my further understanding that, preceeding this action, Moore assigned his rights to the MMP to TPL in exchange for an agreement with that entity. The entity which has assigned rights is, per my understanding, the legal owner of rights to the patent.

For clarity: if you are working for a company and while working for them in their facilities using their resources you manage to invent something, and a patent is issued, you will be shown as "inventor" with rights assigned to the company. Who owns the patent?

My further understanding is that IF the MA were to fall apart, assigned rights to the MMP will revert back to PTSC and TPL independently, and the entities would compete for licensees - in neither party's best interest IMO.

I'm open to correction on any of the above, but hope it helps.

To your next point (3) regarding ownership of Alliacense work product. Bottom line, when you pay for something, it's yours. If you pay for half of something, it's half yours.

I could go into a ton of explanation on how contracts work; this effort being akin to a cost sharing cost-type or Time and Materials-type contract - any "pay as you go" contract with two parties sharing the cost. Alliacense effort on the MMP is funded by PDS, which is half owned by PTSC and half owned by TPL. Alliacense is the contractor.

Perhaps an analogy... You and your brother decide to build a house, funding the effort 50/50. You brother is the general contractor. You and your brother fund the effort equally over time. You and your brother decide, for whatever reason, to stop building the unfinished house. Who owns the unfinished house? The general contractor? Your brother? You? or You and your brother 50/50?

Obviously, I hope, you and your brother 50/50. Same deal.

Contractually, about the only way that the contractor (Alliacense) can claim ownership of unfinished, or finished, work is if the contractor funded the entire effort itself with no funding from the client. This means no funding from the client whether in the form of pay as you go (cost type/T&M type contract) or in the form of progress payments against a fixed-price type contract.

Perhaps Ronran or Milestone can chime in here, as I'm but a lowly former Contracts guy.

I concede your forth point, and my apologies for an apparent mis-interpretation/mis-representation.

I brought up the '336 because that is IMO the thing on which everything hinges.

What "revealing of sales" are you referring to? Back in 1999? Or just over a year ago when I believe I advised of some sales that I hated doing, but had to do out of personal necessity. Advising of a sale coupled with statements that I hated doing it because of the potential opportunity lost was somehow damaging? Please explain.

Is this anything like when I advised that I was planning on buying back in in a pretty big way last fall, but mentioned concern about wanting to catch a dip so I could make that significant buy a little more effectively? How that was somehow bashing?

SGE