I don't disagree with you. My point though is that if PTSC and TPL split, and TPL maintains their portion of "ownership" of the patents, then they have the right to license the patents. Considering that we know from PTSC allegations that TPL will discount the the MMP in order to package it with their other IP, I have no doubt TPL would continue that practice in the future so that they can maintain that competitive advantage over PTSC.

My understanding is that an infringer only has to license with ONE of the patent owners, and they'll be off the hook for any infringement claims. So if TPL is out there with all the reverse engineering already, and they are in negotiations with 80, or 200, or 500, or whatever the number is we're supposed to believe based on previous PTSC/TPL commentary, and they can sell the MMP for $2M and CoreFlash or one of their other ones for $6M, and meanwhile PTSC needs to scramble to catch up on the rev. eng. front, and tries to sell the MMP for $8M to the same infringer, I'd guess that infringer wouldn't hesitate to buy from TPL instead of PTSC.

That's why I say either TPL & PTSC need to settle this and move forward together, OR, PTSC needs to be sure that LEGALLY, TPL has NO OWNERSHIP claims to the MMP. Since there appears to be court documents acknowleging TPL as at least part owner, the water is muddied IMO, and needs to be cleared if the MA is to be dissolved.