I'll go one more round on this....

What I interpret, and what I've said REPEATEDLY is that resolution (ii) would prohibit TPL from marketing non-MMP portfolios independently. That's it, that's what it says. And I have explained why this is desireable to PTSC.

Please explain how your interpretation would be desireable to PTSC - to prohibit the bundling of the MMP with other represented patent portfolios. Would it be so that TPL/Alliacense would be free to dedicate all their resources to marketing everything but the MMP, so that when revenues come in TPL is not obligated to use their portion of those revenues to pay back the secured loan? Does that make sense to you?

Here it looks like we agree to disagree. I'd personaly like to see input from a third party who is capable of interpretting such things and whose opinion you'd trust, a la Ronran.

And now I will conceed that I was possibly wrong about Lecky not being the "TPL Representative" that opposed the resolutions. Not absolutely wrong, but possibly wrong. What I don't get in your input here is that there have always been two TPL representatives/employees on the PDS Management Committee. You say one is "independent". So are you suggesting that Neilson's vote should be regarded as "independent" when he was a TPL employee? When he is/becomes a former TPL employee? Please define "independent".

SGE