Sure, the other business arrangements that may have been discussed may indeed have to do with another Alliacense-represented patent portfolio. And I see nothing wrong with that, and the MMP may (should) actually benefit. Any time costs or a portion of costs are shared, each participant pays less - pretty simple concept.....

So, you are apparently suggesting that PTSC will foot half the bill for the promotion and "sell" of a license for one or more of the other patent portfolios? THINK, just for a moment.

Are you suggesting that one of those other portfolio owners is going to indicate on their books that they sold a license at zero cost of sales (because PTSC footed the bill)? And you think that this is not going to stick out like a sore thumb?

And it's not just that other patent owner's books, but also Alliacense's and TPL's books. And in those books, the records will show up together. And nobody (IRS, State, PTSC folks/auditors) are ever even going to notice?

And by the way, this would constitute fraud (if it were determined to be an intentional act), and tax fraud. The other patent owner could also be found complicit in fraud if they noted the anomally and did nothing to correct it (and how could they miss it?). Now add conspiracy (to commit a felony) charges.

And accountants are so known for being such risk-takers.

FWIW,

SGE