We definitely disagree, and for good reason. If the double negative was intended to be removed as you state, it WOULD HAVE BEEN.

Rather, it reads as follows:

TPL must NOT market.....(what must it not market?)

patent portfolios in which PDS does not have an interest....(essentially anything BUT the MMP)

and HOW/WHEN must it NOT market them?

with the MMP Patent Portfolio.

Surely as a contracts guy, you realize that PTSC has no ability or right to dictate to TPL how it must perform its contracts with completely separate parties (ie. owners of CORE Flash, FAST Logic etc.). It can only influence the relationship and contract that it has with TPL, that is the MA & Commerciaizaton Agreement.

That being the case, PTSC is seeking 2 things. First, that in contrast to prior arrangements spelled out in those agreements that let "standard" licenses be sold WITHOUT the managment committee's prior approval, it is now asserting through the resolution that ALL licenses must be approved by the MC PRIOR to signing. Secondly, it's asserting that no longer can TPL/Alliacense market the other Patent Portfolios it represents along WITH the MMP, as it clearly has done at least 8 or 9 times (SUCCESSFULLY - we don't know how many times UNsuccessfully) by my last count. I say clearly, because of the contemporaneous signings of those other deals to the MMP deals.

You should go back and read the MA & CommAg again, and I'm positive you'll find your mistaken in your interpretation.