I agree with your logic. HOWEVER, in selling a $200K piece of yellow iron equipment that has for example $5K worth of MMP infringing tech in it , versus a $10K piece of computer equipment that perhaps has $2K worth of MMP infringing tech in it, and if you consider NEITHER final product works without the MMP tech that it contains, shouldn't there be some consideration made?

When you look at the Bosch qaurter vs the Caterpillar quarter, I think certain parallels can be made between the licensee make up of each quarter, and yet the license revenue generated from the latter was barely 1/10th of the former.

Granted, we don't know the formulas, but using an educated guess, it sure seems likely that the license fees have DECLINED in certain instances, or at least TPL has agreed to settle for less in certain instances for strategic reasons.

In the context of the discussion of value, in doing so, TPL by default is lowering the "valuation" of the MMP, REGARDLESS of what may have been previously stated. As in many cases, value is determined by MARKET, not by advetising or some previously achieved value. Certainly, anyone who has owned a home in the US over the last decade understands that fact.