Nice analysis. But here we have another situation where the things depicted are not correct, and the data is ancient.

You say: "There are over 400 infringers according to the PRs." The number I call is 485, as of some three/four years ago. And this is/was NOT the entire infringer pool. That 485 number (open to correction) was the number of infringers that had been put on legal notice at that point in time - the number of infringers where analysis had been performed, and the alleged infringing party provided data sheets and other generated supporting documentation to support our claim of infringement and demand to royalty payment.

IMO, it is safe to assume that more infringers have been put on official notice over the past few years. And we KNOW that the infringer pool is much larger than any of us probably imagined. Here I remind that in the infamous 2/4/11 PACER, five chip manufacturers were identified as producing alleged infringing chips. And some simple analysis revealed that just one of those chip manufacturers - Texas Instruments - has 80,000 customers. If just 1% of TI's customers use infringing chips, we have 800 license candidates - via just one chip manufacturer.

Perhaps something to consider here is that Alliacense has determined that at least certain chips from those manufacturers do infringe, i.e., a significant portion of the work required to support an infringement claim against the customers of those five (at least) chip manufacturers is already done. Reverse engineering should be limited to breaking down a suspect device and verifying the chip in use. So what's left (for data sheets and suppoting docs) would be an assessment of volume of use and assigning a value to support an initial license proposal.

What this comes down to is that it would be impossible, and irresponsible, for PTSC to try to "ballpark" a number for the future value of the MMP. The comment by Leckrone that the MMP value is/was over $1B (i.e., not EXACTLY $1B, but over that amount) is probably reasonably safe. I interpret it as "at least" $1B.

What I would be far more interested in, over some arbitrary WAG from the company (PTSC or TPL) as to potential future revenues, is the CURRENT number of infringers that have been put on notice. That bit of data would be a better reflection of MMP potential as of today (recognizing that, over time, many more infringers will be identified and notified through patent expiration and the "look back" period).

The other big factor IMO will be the T3 Markman - the test of the amended recertified patents. THAT, plus the reaction in that case, will be a good indicator.

JMHO, FWIW,

SGE