Blah, blah, blah (personal attacks), and then an acknowledgment that what you stated as "REALITY" was likely untrue.
"I believe that is closer to $5M-$9M total as I've posted in the past."
But then you turn right around and again suggest that the $18-20M is correct!
"BTW, if you did your research you'd know exactly where the $18-$20M figure came from and it should chap your arse all the more that our BOD and TPL have allowed Apple in the MMP tent for such a pittance."
Granted, I didn't waste time doing the intense research that you apparently did. I knew it wouldn't make me feel any better about the whole thing, and it was water under the bridge (all the way to the ocean).
To be clear, I'm open to any speculation by anyone, as long as there is some reasonable basis (or, actually even if there isn't - it will get straightened out quick enough!). It just seems that "based on my research" is a bit weak. And I understand that sharing the results of your research could get very complicated, but gosh, it isn't like you don't have time available to post here.
Referring to the above quote; I'm open to correction, but I believe that at the time the Apple license was signed, DL had unilateral approval authority. So the PTSC BoD was not involved in that decision (and I suspect you KNOW this, yet suggest otherwise). And I seriously doubt that the BoD was happy with the result - whether it was $5M or $20M. We KNOW they were not happy with the original (by DL) allocation for the MMP!
I have rarely (too rarely!) been satisfied with licensing amounts. About the only exceptions were AMD and Intel (because those were at least understandable from the view that they were first in line), along with Fujitsu.
My view here is from the standpoint of the criticality of our IP to the business/products in question. It just seems we should be capable of demanding, and getting, much more. But I do realize that there is a basic problem with this philosophy - the last thing these companies want to buy is a license for any tech they have been successfully stealing for a decade or more, free of charge. It hasn't been an "easy sell".
I just hope that as time passes and events fall in our favor, the RISK to prospective licensees will bring them to the table with their FAT wallet, not the skinny one. We're not there quite yet (darn it), but we appear to be inching closer to the sweet spot.
And that's what ALL of us await, and await, and await. That is the common ground we all pace around on.
BTW, I do get where you draw the parrallel between the J3 MOU scenario and the "more to come from Apple" scenario. My objection is with your using the word "farce" in characterizing the former. There was a sound basis for that speculation, which was always qualified as a mere possibility - not an absolute - by pretty much everyone who posted about it. And a lot of people, in both camps, recognized the possibility - simply because it made some sense of things that made little sense at the time.
The difference is that the Apple scenario is based solely on a comment from a cornered DL who IMO had no alternative response. And if memory serves, he made that comment immediately before stating "I don't want to talk about it any more" (i.e., "I refuse to talk about it any more"). I suspect that the folks that promote the Apple possibility were not aware of this "influencing factor" in coming to their conclusion.
An insight from the AMS is that DL and Janet sat next to me (and no, I had never met or communicated in any fashion with DL or anyone at TPL/Alliacense before that moment, or since the AMS). During the PTSC Q&A, the word Apple was mentioned (I believe by Marc, who asked mostly good questions but was difficult to hear). DL asked "what did he say?". I turned and said "Apple". Upon noting his look of complete surprise, I said "we know about it from a PACER that I believe was related to the Marceau case".
FWIW,
SGE
