From your post

Here's a statement from one of PTSC's lawyers, John P. Moran in the case against TPL in speaking about the Apple license:

"An important factor in determining the "reasonable royalty" is the amount that the patent owner historically has licensed the technology at issues to other parties."

....

"This license will potentially adversely limit future licenses, and in particular the "reasonable royalty" analysis. The amount of royalty that can be commanded from other companies will therefore be potentially adversely impacted, and will continue to be adversely impacted if TPL continues licensing the MMP Portfolio in a similar manner."

I am going out on a limb. Is it possible that the new lawyers erroneoulsy reported in a Pacer that GE, Motorola etc. had licensed the MMP, when in fact they may have licensed another portfolio? Certainly the quarterly numbers don't support license fees that would have been expected of such industry giants.

If it was a mistake in reporting then shouldn't those same attorneys correct this via Pacer?

If it was in fact a true statement, then it would appear that the amount of royalty continues to be adversely impacted and I am beginning to wonder if Leckrone holds some if not all directors hostage for reasons only they know. Why hasn't PDS appointed a third and impartial director to its BoD. It's only Dan and Carl and from the quarterly report obviously Carl agreed to have PDS pay more money. Do we know if Leckrone still receives his 15% before the 50/50 split? We do know that he is still submitting fees for his part in the litigation. Who is auditing those fees? How do we know that it is his part in the litigation that involves PTSC. What if those fees are really to help him for his part in the litigation with Brown, Marcoux and Moore?