To be honest, I'm not 100% sure of the terms of the original TPL offer either! This is just my recollection (with recalling myself going "hmmmm" after going back and looking years ago after I myself criticized the $7.5M offer).

As for the accounting concern, it appears we're in basic agreement. PTSC didn't have access to Alliacense's books until recently. Irregulrities would be difficult to detect based on PDS accounting records alone.

And you are correct IMO, in that the MA should have included provisions for detailed oversight. Being a "checks & balances fanatic", I would have demanded such as consideration for granting exclusive licensing rights.

But this is "woulda, coulda, shoulda" type stuff. There is no doubt in my mind that PTSC wishes they could turn back the clock and negotiate those agreements again, with several improvements.

And there is no doubt in my mind that this is exactly what PTSC was doing in its negotiations for a settlement with TPL - trying to incorporate those very improvements.

And notice that PTSC is obviously standing firm with its demands (obvious only because there has been no complete settlement).

And it is reasonable to assume that the "push back" encountered in negotiations with TPL recently (again obvious because of the lack of settlement) is what was/would have been encountered "back then", delaying productive licensing (just like we see today).

So, ultimately, IMO - it was a tough call. Demand, get no satisfaction, delay revenues OR Compromise as was apparently necessary and get the licensing show on the road ASAP.

Current situation (as it appears): Demand until we get satisfaction, revenues be darned.

FWIW,

SGE