"And they should also be set up to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, especially when you consider PTSC is a PUBLIC company, and TPL is private."

And you just assume they are not, and haven't been. That's the base of this difference of opinion.

I will admit that fatwollit's discovery about Thunderbird does make some of your arguments more compelling (not so much about expenses, but about fees).

As for our other argument, regarding resolution (ii), I keep trying to come up with a way to further explain the basis of my interpretation, and thus at least open your eyes to the possibility that my interpretation is correct. Today, it occurs to me that perhaps it's understanding of the use of the word "portfolio" in the context of this resolution.

"(ii) effective immediately, TPL must not market patent portfolios in which PDS does not have an interest with the MMP Patent Portfolio."

To my way of thinking a patent "portfolio" can include any number of patents with any number of patent owners. So if TPL "bundled" the MMP and CoreFlash in a license agreement(s), especially from the licensee's perspective, they acquired one patent portfolio comprised of a possible mutlitude of patents, with multiple patent owners. Perhaps reading that resolution in light of this would help. If not, fine. There is nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree.

FWIW,

SGE