"If Alliacence is marketing other portfolios in the same negotiations that MMP is being marketed, and NOT differentiating those costs, but charging PDS for all of it, then there is less "take home" money for PTSC, not to mention that's a violation of the agreement."

Why do you assume there would be no segregation of expenses? Simple accounting, without which they would be committing fraud. You have zero basis for this assumption.

And why do you assume that the MMP license fee would be discounted in a bundle arrangement? Isn't it equally possible that there could be a premium for the bundling?

And with segregated costs spread over two or more patent portfolios, wouldn't you expect the expenses allocated to each would be less?

"In other words, to take your focus of the loan repayment, TPL would essentially be paying PTSC back with PTSC's money, rather than TPL's money. Great for TPL, bad for PTSC."

Please explain. Especially in light of resolution (i).

BTW, I strongly suspect that TPL's "deals" with other patent portfolio owners is very similar to that with PTSC (essentially). A 50/50 split of revenues - a common arrangement (see EDIG). Thus, TPL makes no more money regardless of who their licensing partner may be, or what revenues are derived from each portfolio.

Now, please solicit an interpretation from Ronran.

SGE