I hate to revisit history, because everyone has their own interpretation and recollection of events. But based on the ignorance revealed in your post, which I find astounding, this appears to be a time when people should just sit back and think for a minute, and maybe try putting themselves in the shoes of those they criticize.

So, here's my recollection of where we were at when the MA was executed. PTSC had the first licensee, AMD. Some six months later. TPL/Moore got their first licensee, Intel. There was a dispute over true ownership/inventorship of the patents. Due to (IMO) a series of strange, unfortunate events involving patent breakdown and co-inventor designation, and peculiar events in litigation, the picture wasn't "super rosy" for PTSC, but actually pretty bad, and they may have been at risk of losing any and all patent rights.

You suggest that you'd chose that moment to forge off on your own, with litigation in process placing your ownership rights at risk, refuse to negotiate (though you suggest "negotiate better", ignoring the probable fact that Moore/Lecky had already put their best and final offer - BAFO - on the table, i.e., Moore/Lecky were no longer at the table), and try to market the tech independently. This while also facing the fact that your opposition supposedly has patents & licensing and reverse engineering in operation. Your opposition is your competition.

What would happen if two parties competed to sell the exact same product, especially when that product is not even tangible (i.e., no production costs, large facilities, etc.) but merely a piece of paper granting certain rights? I hate to point out the obvious, but they'd compete the price for the product down to some ultimately small amount. Perhaps better stated, accused infringers would simply play one patent co-inventor against the other until a license was acquired at minimal cost. Not millions, not hundreds of thousands. Under such circumstances, do you honestly believe gross revenues of some $300M could have been achieved with the first 80 some licensees? (combining proceeds of both independent parties).

What if you lose all or equal ownership rights in litigation, which really hadn't been going well? More significantly, with all the money at stake, win or lose in court (i.e., sans settlement), there would very likely be an appeal, followed by another, and another.... If PTSC hadn't settled with Moore, we'd still be in court, or more likely, out of business.

Also, since you would have no desire to cooperate with your one and only competitor with whom you're in ongoing litigation over ownership, would an infringing company ever be sued? Could you (PTSC) ever bring suit against a known infringer without directly involving (on your side of the table) the co-inventor, Moore (and his joined-at-the-hip legal counsel, Leckrone), with whom you happen to be in dispute? (ans: NO). And if you did decide to cooperate, how would that work? Who would pay for what? How would you distribute the proceeds of a win or litigation-prompted settlement? Gosh, I guess they would HAVE TO negotiate some sort of arrangement!

Or would you just conclude "well, if formal legal action would necessarily require negotiating some sort of deal with Moore/Leckrone (expenses, proceeds, cooperation), we just won't sue anybody and hope nobody sues us (a la Barco, Acer, HTC)!". Where's your stick? When giving notice to a suspected infringer, where's your hammer, your threat? Oh, you don't have one!

You do understand that the MA and ComAg were conditions of the settlement with Moore, right? They didn't just fall out of nowhere, or done for convenience. Nobody but Lecky (and apparently Moore at the time) likes the MA/ComAg, but it was what was on the table.

A settlement eliminated all the above risks. But, as we now know, PTSC assumed other risks. And today we suffer as a consequence.

Where would we be if they took your suggestion? Without any ownership rights? Telemarketing MMP licenses for a few thousand a pop? Out of business? IMO, one of these would have been the result.

So, I now must correct myself when I said:
"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."

It wasn't a tough call at all. They had to settle IMO. Dictated by risk and consideration of alternatives (as you suggested, as shot down above). To settle, they had to enter the MA/ComAg. As we know today, not a "happy" decision, but better than facing the risks and shortfalls of taking an alternative path.

Now, for the Paul Harvey part: what is being done by those you criticize NOW, TODAY? We are in a somewhat similar situation, it appears.

Fortunately, PTSC has the financial where-with-all to stand firm. And this time, there is no risk of PTSC losing patent rights/ownership, and those patents are stronger having survived reexams. The only big issue for PTSC is that the clock is ticking.

What would you have PTSC do in the current situation?

Forge off on their own, facing the pitfalls addressed above?

OR

See the court case through, confident of achieving satisfaction, meanwhile dangling our firm terms/BAFO for settlement in Lecky's face?

It sure looks like they are doing the latter. The pressure/risk is IMO far more on Lecky this time (this is key, and the key contrast with the circumstance of the past - almost a full reversal). But we suffer revenue delays.

Are you, or is anyone, unhappy with the current PTSC stance?

SGE