I'll try to respond to everything.....

Apple? I believe you basically capture the situation in your second-to-last paragraph. That could, indeed, be a source of surprise.

And I acknowledge that there may have been unannounced licensing in the 1st qtr. I only suggest that at that point in the game, IMO Leckrone had more incentive to NOT license the MMP (but instead to focus on HIS patents, as he did) than to expend any effort on MMP licensing.

My basis is mostly on the fact that the oversight and approval process provisions were like those of the Preliminary Injunction. With the court's backing, I strongly suspect we were permitted intensive oversight since that was one of the matters in dispute. That is now in concrete. And the approval process....similar situation.

I may as well give my take on the whole commingling thing....just applying fact, logic and business sense (though I still offer it as an opinion, as I certainly don't know for sure, yet). What constitutes commingling? More than one portfolio licensed to the same licensee at the same time. They could even be separate licenses (pieces of paper), and IMO it would be considered "commingling". The issue is timing. Since there is no way to fully prevent TPL from licensing patents that happen to be infringed by the exact same party who is infringing the MMP, IMO the only way to prevent commingling (as I define it) is with a significant separation of time. So that's what I suspect is the new requirement in that regard. But there will be times when there is no way to avoid commingling (again, as I define it). Settlement of a legal dispute (a la T3), where to effectively end the dispute via licensing the licenses for all portfolios would be executed and effective at the same time. Also, perhaps, situations of Work In Process, where all license negotiations to date were contingent on multiple (portfolio) licensing. It would be kind of hard to undo that. And then which license comes first, to enable that separation of time? Thus (IMO) the provisions for properly determining allocation of commingled license proceeds. To me, all this just makes sense (and I can think of nothing else that would).

I hope this is helpful. I'll be away the rest of the day....

SGE