I'm still catching up on posts, so some of my observations, opinions and corrections may have already been addressed. If so, my apologies. But I'm seeing posts that appear to be confusing matters, while digesting a relatively complex situation.

First, in reply to Kiddtrader's post to which this replies.

You note an apparent contrast, but rightful qualify:

"Isn't PTSC now asking TPL for what they have been saying they had all along? I am not a CPA, so probably missing something, so maybe Fut or Bush can provide thoughts here? "

Now I opine where Bush or Fut may have already replied. Read the two statements again. In your email reply from PTSC, they were talking about the accounting data to which they were permitted access - PDS's books. But that's only half the story. To know, absolutely, that "something is wrong", you pretty much have to see the other half - they know what PDS/PTSC was charged in the quest for every license, but they don't know what Alliacense charged TPL on those occasions where there was concurrent licensing or other actions. They were previously not permitted access to TPL's/Alliacense's books, only PDS. What is stated in Friday's PR strongly suggests that, via the court, they will be permitted access to TPL's/Alliacense's books to verify suspicions.

And here is an interesting thought. Many suspect this action by PTSC is late. Others suspect the delay in taking action was due a lack of sufficient evidence to justify proceeding with action. Consider this: the formal complaint by Barco regarding communications with Lecky, and the meeting in Belgium with Barco's CEO. Perhaps PTSC noted an expense to PDS for travel to Europe, including a stop-over in Belgium (including related expenses). This meeting with Barco became public information. PTSC may not have had any solid evidence of wrongdoing in charging practices until noting that ths stop-over was NOT in the interest of the MMP, but in the sole interest of "selling" other patent portfolios. Evidence on a platter. Thank you Barco. This is pure speculation.

Also, a couple of clarifications and corrections. Ease posted on Yahoo (a good post BTW) about the possibility that PTSC made that second, unsecured loan in order to "set up" a court situation. I completely agree with this conjecture, but clarification is required. My recent same conjecture had to do with the loan case in San Diego, and the possibility of PTSC ultimately gaining a greater percentage interest in the MMP.

Here is where things are getting confused. The case where "all hell broke loose" is the case about the resolutions/contractual disagreements (originally, I believe, now morphed into much more) that is taking place in Santa Clara.

Two different cases. Not surprisingly, both towards a similar ultimate outcome. Two fronts, concurrently. If we don't get Lecky on one front, we'll get him on the other. Note the timing. Again consider the making of that unsecured loan. I strongly suspect there was a plan in play since late last year/early this year.

The only thing apparently wrong with the plan? Delays, and failure of Lecky to succumb to the pressures - so far. Imagine those pressures at this point!

I should add something here: in the past I have suggested that accounting of concurrent activities for various customers is not difficult, but commonplace, which is true. I've also suggested that I doubt that Lecky would engage in fraudulent or other nefarious activity because he cannot possibly be that stupid. It looks like I was probably wrong; he IS that stupid.

FWIW,

SGE