< Presumably, the market is getting better, not worse, with respect to the ARS situation. If so, then why would you settle for less than par rather than the par you've received to date, or better yet, the possibility of an appreciation if redeemed during a future improved market.>

You make some valid points, but I'd be interested in why you think staying power is not an issue in the dispute with TPL.

The underlined above is a very good question. It sounds totally illogical, doesn't it? Unless, for whatever reason, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush? Or the difference between what we will get for sure and what we might get if successful, was not sufficient to make continued litigation worth the effort? Or a combination of the two.

Here's a for instance. What if TPL is truly hurting for money. Since they borrowed from PTSC, it would seem that they are. What if TPL doesn't have money to pay the attorneys involved with litigation with infringers? What if TPL doesn't have the money to pay Henneman to keep things going at the USPTO? Now consider the MA. Can you see why the bird in the hand might be worth 2 or several in the bush?

Opty