The key to whole thing is Leckrones' motives. He somehow gained, or claimed to gain ownership from Moore. He has stalled through his first time discount program. Was this for strategic validity issue reasons, or some other purpose? Are his manipulations to gain complete control of the patents? Are there other interested parties who would condone his stall tactic behavior? With all the manipulations going on behind the scenes you really have to wonder. I can only hope that all this will finally get flushed out with the current litigations. It may be very enlightening to see who blinks first. I hope it is not PTSC but I hope I have misinterpreted their statement in the 10Q that it would be better to continue liensing through TPL. That seems to be a blink to me. If that is the case then IMO who at PTSC wants to align with Leckrone and why was our law suit filed in the first place? Is there division at PTSC over these issues? Nothing but questions? Hence the SP.

While all the above is playing out the infringers naturally wait. If we each (TPL, PTSC) sell lienses the competition would only bring the cost down. So now back to square one. Why did Moore side with TPL, and Fish with PTSC? Didn't they each know that this would lessen the value and strength of the patents? What was the obvious wedge driven between them. Professional jealousy, or greed? Who placed that wedge? Was it TPL? Or PTSC? Considering Moores' situation today I think he wishes he had sided with us.

All of this can be cured by money. Once the coffers are estabished through litigation of the 3 parties and they each are satisfied with their cut and control (the major issue now) everyone will be happy. TPL having exclusive control does not seem to be an ideal situation that the other two can live with. The devil (and Leckrone) are in the details.