You asked "anybody", so I guess I qualify...

In that company statement from the Quarterly PR (which differs from the similar statement in to 10Q), I again focus on the word "productive". IMO, "productive" licensing ended quite a while back. Note the seemingly small (as far as we know) cost of a license recently.

Also note the relative obvious intent behind the "resolution (i)" - for the PTSC rep in PDS to have a say about future licenses before they are executed. This, IMO, falls from small recent licensing amounts, unacceptably small.

IMO, "productive" licensing isn't likely to resume until we're out of the woods with the PTO. As long as patents are in turmoil, there is little to incent a prospective licensee to pay an amount any of us would consider "acceptable".

But more to the point, IMO (with agreed ignorance), I don't think the "issues" between PTSC and TPL, or between TPL and Moore, should have any impact on licensing activity. All parties want licensing to continue - though PTSC (and possibly Moore) has put its foot down regarding licensing for peanuts. But here I depend on logic and common sense, which may not apply.

So IMO, as always, it ALL hinges on the PTO.

On that front, I have emailed Bahr in an effort to follow up on our request for action (requesting a point of contact in the examination oversight organization). No response as yet. Now considering other avenues (but can't find the map!).

FWIW,

Anybody