Opty... If you dont see it ........and everyone else can,,,,,,,,,, than that would mean you are blind.... LOL But of course I made a statement without elaboration....The press release states that we have resolved part of the dispute and working the rest... What I meant to say is TPL had no horse in this race until it agreed to do the the work in maximizing the MMP.. they had NO rights to the patent when the contention for ownership started... so with no rightful ownership how did they gain it??? they agreed to do the foot work... but when going got tough... the tough milked the others for extra cost.. In the agreement PTSC would pay no more than 1,000,000 per year for Allicense... then cost for Lobbing... cost for Patent claims... Loans that go unpaid the result a free extension(Yes they dont pay the loan we take them to court & they get free extension..but I got off track again.,.. The main piont is TPL agreed to work to promote MMP in its best Interest (off memory)... SO orginalay TPL had NO RIGHTS to MMP.. Chuck & TPL agreed to let TPL do the licensing in our interest.. Chuck feels they did not live up to thier end.... PTSC still says it believes TPL did not meet thier responsabilty... So if TPL did not meant thier obligation,,, so I think it would be EZ to bounce them out...