Perhaps it would helpful to remove the double negative"

"TPL must market patent portfolios in which PDS does have an interest WITH the MMP Patent Portfolio."

And perhaps a further refinement would be helpful, removing the unnecessary words (since we KNOW the PDS interests ONLY include the MMP):

"TPL must market patent portfolios in which PDS does have an interest."

You say:

"I'm not sure how you perverted what the PR said into somehow PTSC was now preventing TPL from marketing other patents it likely has a contractual obligation to market, UNLESS, it marketed those along with the MMP."

Perhaps you should reread my original post. But, in case I was not clear, my interpretation is that PTSC (actually, the resolution) is now preventing TPL from marketing other patents INDEPENDENTLY. And I've explained their probable motivation for this, and why Lecky was agreeable (at least at one point, when the resolutions were ratified).

Perhaps it would be helpful to recognize that when they say "patent portfolios" in that sentence, it could (probably does, IMO) mean portfolios that may include multiple of the portfolios represented by TPL/Alliacense, e.g., MMP and CoreFlash, combined, being a "patent portfolio", a package, a bundle.

Hope this helps. And if you disagree with my interpretation, that's fine. We can agree to disagree. But at this point I believe I've explained and re-explained everything enough. IMO, I have been exceedingly clear in my posts....

SGE