a significant increase in licensing activity? I fear not based on what Chuck Moore has to say about the PTSC/TPL settlement agreement. As with Chuck Moore, I believe that PTSC shareholders should pursue all remedies available to them. Will a favorable Markman result in a wave of commingled licenses with minimal revenues to PTSC? Or worse, no wave at all and more excuses for no licensing activity. In my opinion, our BoD settled for no good reasons and it makes more and more sense to me that Leckrone may have something on them which scares the hell out of them.

Did our BoD hastily and unwittingly agree to a settlement agreement which created an environment for TPL to intentionally restrict licensing, delay the Markman Hearing, continue to delay resolution of this hearing all for the benefit of TPL? Read what Chuck Moore had to say about it.

From Moore's blog regarding his thoughts about the settlement agreement

..Patriot advised me, repeatedly, that it would make no settlement with TPL that did not settle my claims against TPL as well.

...TPL is restricting its licensing efforts to hold down licensing revenues. There is no mention here of revenues or licensing targets that TPL must meet. Again, TPL has boxed itself into a financial corner, in which its revenues must stay low, and its expenses high enough, to avoid accountability to those looking to TPL for payments based on its revenue stream. Patriot here has consented to minimal revenues for the foreseeable future.

...TPL now depends for survival on a low revenues, high expense environment. TPL has continually found ways to delay the "Markman Hearing" to maximize expenses and charges against MMP revenues.

I regret that Patriot has gone back on its word to me, settled behind my back, attempted to abridge and negate my contract rights, and consented to an agreement that assures minimal revenues from the MMP portfolio for months and years to come.

I will continue to pursue all remedies at my disposal.

http://colorforth.com/pat.pdf

(emphasis by me)