28 June 9:00 Tuesday

I received a complaint from Ken, my lawyer, relayed from Mark, Leckrone's lawyer, about my post last week. I gather that Leckrone thinks I should not disparage Alliacense.

You may have noticed my terse writing style. That devolves from writing software and trying to minimize the number of words. I can see how that might create confusion in this instance. So I'll expand and hopefully clarify my remarks.

I stated that "I'm privy to the licensing efforts of Alliacense." More precisely, I attend a weekly teleconference at which Mike Davis reports Alliacense' efforts at licensing the MMP portfolio. I know nothing about the other patents that Alliacense licenses.

Then I juxtaposed the statement "Not much success." suggesting it derived from privileged information. That was unfortunate and inaccurate. Alliacense boasts of licenses granted by issuing press releases. The absence of such indicates lack of success. As do the income statements of Patriot Scientific.

Next I said "Excuses include litigation and summer doldrums." Needless to say, I express my own opinions. Litigation against Leckrone is public knowledge and includes the Acer lawsuit, my own complaint, Patriot's lawsuit, Brown's lawsuit as well as patent re-exams. To think these have a negative impact on licensing takes no special insight. "Summer doldrums" are a recognized seasonal dip in economic activity. Licensing revenues may be expected to conform to this trend.

Finally, "I have plans for that $50M." is overly precise in its terseness. Potential MMP revenue is unknown and unknowable. The cost of realizing that revenue is unknown. The fraction accruing to me is the subject of negotiation/litigation. But in my opinion such royalties are substantial and worth my concern. Hundreds of infringers remain to be licensed.

All in all, much ado about nothing. Leckrone is hypersensitive to any mention of himself, TPL or Alliacense