Thank you for "calling me out" on this. I for one do not have a problem when someone questions something I post that may be flawed - this is a primary purpose of this message board.

I did indeed "mis-speak" with that statement. The oversight requirements were not per the Preliminary Injunction, but per the agreement reached with TPL/Alliacense in January/February 2011. While this issue was a major bone of contention in our dispute with TPL, the solution did not enjoy "court backing" as I describe as far as I know, other than indirectly by resolving a major concern in dispute - taking it off the table.

However, the approval process provision I suggest did have the court's backing via the Preliminary Injunction, in that you'll recall that the court designated Carl as "head" of PDS, and one would think this would include "veto power" over subsequent licensing agreements, perhaps to the point of absolute power. The settlement appears to reflect this as an ongoing stipulation - future licensing agreements require pre-approval by PTSC, and Leckrone cannot unilaterally enter agreements. That's my take....an opinion. After all, nothing short of such a requirement would resolve the (valid) concern.

Back to "extensive oversight": In a conversation I had with Gloria on this topic many months ago (but after the Jan/Feb agreement), I questioned the extent/depth of PTSC's oversight activities (being a checks & balances fanatic when it comes to the conduct of business, it was a natural question). Her response took me aback: "Alliacense hates us". Why is that, beyond the fact that this is an issue (allegation) in dispute? Because, after the agreement in Jan/Feb, PTSC questioned and demanded (and received) complete basis and justification for each and every expense levied on PDS - all expenses claimed to be attributable to the MMP. Alliacense did not appreciate these demands, which they were (and are) obligated to fulfill. Extra attention and effort required, far beyond what had been "customary". I came away with a warm feeling that the "possible overcharging" concern was resolved as humanly possible. With the settlement, this appears to be the ongoing procedure.

Here I should comment about my interaction with PTSC, as some seem to believe it is far closer than it really is. Since March 1999 (yup, twelve and a half years ago), I suspect the number of contacts I've had with PTSC could be counted with fingers and toes. They have always been receptive, consistently. I believe this is because every contact has had a cooperative, non-threatening tone and typically the contact contains some real "meat" (never frivolous) and a reflection of business knowledge. Business experience dictates that if you want something that the other party is under no real obligation to provide, you be nice about it and never bother them with trivia. Operating otherwise leads you to a brick wall. All contacts I've had have had a cooperative, helpful tone, even though some suggestions and questions may have been (were) "sensitive". And I am alert to not posing questions knowing in advance that they aren't going to answer - I have a pretty clear understanding of the boundaries. So it's my approach, BTW an honest approach, that has allowed the door to be open to contact (though I too experience delays on occasion - they don't drop everything to communicate with me, and shouldn't IMO). Perhaps another thing that has contributed to the "SGE open door" is their recognition of positive things that I've (sometimes with others) actually done, beginning with that article in April 1999 (which is actually remembered at PTSC, which I found a bit surprising).

Thank you again. Hopefully the above clears the concern.

SGE