Let's review what the REALITY is regarding the Apple license. Per the Moore, Marcoux and PTSC lawsuits v TPL, the following information can be surmised.

• TPL signed Apple for somewhere in the neighborhood of $18-$20M best that I can tell from the various court docs I or others have read.

• For that fee, TPL licensed not only the MMP, but several of their other portfolios.

• Allegedly, TPL originally weighted the proportion of the total fee well in favor of the most valuable of the portfolios, that is the MMP. In other words, of the $18-$20M, 75% was for MMP 10% for another, 8% for another, 4% for another, and 3% for another. These are just examples to illustrate, as I can't remember what was alleged exactly. At the end of the deal though, once the license was signed, the MMP was relegated to less than 20% of the fee or something to that effect.

• PTSC, as well as Moore took exception to this flip flop in valuations and rightly accused TPL of comingling and discounting the MMP to the benefit of their other portfolios. PTSC sued TPL because of this deal.

• PTSC and TPL ultimately settled based on supposed adjustments and considerations, ie. supposedly additional money of the $18-$20M was alotted to the MMP as part of the fee breakdown.

What does all that mean. For starters, it means that this idea that Apple paid a discounted fee in exchange for some other consideration is untrue. From Apple's perspective, and from an historical perspect, Apple paid a higher than average license fee. The DISCOUNT only comes in due to TPL's shenanigans with the allotment of that portion of the fee that applied to the MMP.

It may be true that TPL negotiated with TPL at the time of the signing some access to Apple's research / reverse engineering that they might have had against other infringers that TPL is going after, but I think that idea is HIGHLY SUSPECT.

Just put it this way, if you were Apple and trying to sue Samsung and others for infrigement, are you going to TRUST the Dan Leckrones of the world with data that you've collected? Would you feel confident that Dan Leckrone / TPL would keep that info totally confidential and NOT use it to negotiate with Samsung or others and offer that info in exchange for a license to TPL's patent portfolios?

I think it's quite naive to think that business entities go through the process to resist, fight, then negotiate and finally consumate deals on issues like patent infringement only to leave them open to some future exposure based on some future contingency. Throw in that the company that supposedly did so is the most valuable company in the world, and that the other party to this is 2 companies and an estranged patent owner with a history of infighting amongst themselves, and I think it borders on the ridiculous.