While I agree with the bulk of your post, I take exception to the follow excerpt:

"Just as with the MOU farce back with the J3, to continue to advance a theory of there being more to the Apple deal than a license in exchange for $$ is to be intentionally deceitful, IMO. And the funny thing is that this comes predominately from posters who complain about critical posters bringing up the poor past performance of the BOD."

While the proposition obviously did not come to fruition, the J3 "Delusional PTO Contingency Theory" was not a farce, but was a sound proposition based on what had occurred, circumstances at the time and the peculiar nature of a MOU being employed. And this proposition came from an expert in the field of the use of an MOU, having had hands-on experience in their purpose, formation and use (Space Shuttle program and later). The proposition was NEVER stated as "fact" or "REALITY", but as only a viable possibility. How clear did this point need to be? It was consistently referred to as above, with two disclaimers in the title. "Delusional" and "Theory"; a yet-to-be proven idea. And I'll add that the MOU could almost as easily have been tied to the pending Quanta/LG SC case, as was also proposed by others at the time.

With head firmly planted in the past (like 4-5 YEARS ago!), this comes up as a method to attempt to discredit another poster by distorting the truth, and to basically start a fight. For some, it would seem this is a primary purpose of this message board - that and to avoid entertaining discussion about the future of this investment - you know, the future, where money is to be made or lost with this investment. No, the clear preference is to focus on the past.

Speaking of the past and promoting things as "fact" that simply are not true, just the other day you stated:

"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.Well, just how did you come up with that $18-20M amount? You state the figure as your perception of fact ("REALITY" !!!), and IMO and that of most others here that figure is completely WRONG. So who is it that is being "intentionally deceiptful"?

• 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. "



Just yesterday, Brian made a few posts (all of which I was in complete agreement - they were excellent posts IMO). One of them addressed the Apple deal and the circumstances surrounding that deal. It cited a figure of around $5M (as opposed to your $18-20M figure).

If you had any confidence in the figures you spout, I would expect a normal/honest person to contest the number suggested by Brian. I believe everyone here recognizes that if I had suggested that number, an argument would have probably commenced. Only problem there is that you can't demonstrate how you achieve your figures (as it is impossible, since they are IMO WAY off).

Interestingly, directing a focus on the past, about one year ago YOU suggested the Apple license value was - now get this - $5M. Granted, this was before our settlement with TPL and visibility of its dollar terms. Did YOU have access to insider info?

As for the accuracy of the ~$5M figure, by just looking to the terms of the settlement with TPL, one can easily "back into" the $5M figure. Part of the settlement included a cash payment of a bit over $1M, TPL to PTSC. IMO it is reasonable to suspect that this dollar amount was intended to make up for the shortfall of dollars dedicated to the MMP in the Apple deal and the amount designated for PTSC (which was a primary issue in the TPL/PTSC dispute). In the simplest of terms, ~$1M is ~20% of $5M. I could go to the extreme of delving into exact known numbers, but this should make the point. The Apple deal, using this determination method, SHOULD have been ~$5M, less 15% to TPL/Alliacense, divided by 2 (PTSC and TPL/Moore split). Our cut SHOULD have been a little over $2M, but up front (after the court released monies in dispute) we apparently only got around $1M (as once pointed out by none other than YOU). The amount of the settlement would have made up the difference, bringing PTSC's take to something near $2.125M, or around 42.5% of total - right on, roughly (100% - 15% = 85%. 85% / 2 = 42.5%).

One thing never mentioned, assuming the above is something near correct, is that in its negotiations with TPL to resolve the dispute, PTSC was apparently able to argue that the amount to be dedicated to the other patent portfolio(s) commingled with the MMP be reduced to an amount approaching zero - and rightfully so. This would be an instance of PTSC doing some strong negotiating with TPL, considering amounts available per the dispute. What does this suggest regarding our future dealings with TPL? So complain about long-ago BOD performance, and ignore the recent....

IMO, the only "fly in the ointment" in this entire Apple discussion is the statement made by Moore in his complaint against TPL/Leckrone. He said that in the license with a major electronics/cellphone company based in Silicon Valley, only "5%" was allocated to the MMP. IMO, Mr. Moore mis-spoke, and intended to say "one fifth" (i.e., 20%). Mr. Moore's "5%" would have meant that the MMP/PDS would have received about $1M - in total - of some $20M. Unfortunately, IMO this number simply doesn't fit, as the $1M would be BEFORE the cut to TPL/Alliacense and the remainder between PTSC and TPL/Moore, and does not in any way jive with the PTSC/TPL settlement amount.

Hopefully the above helps to resolve the Apple license value issue, as well as certain posters' intent to deceive.

Or perhaps this will prompt you to back up your numbers - your "REALITY".

And I agree with Brian; when confronted by Stan at the AMS regarding the low value of the Apple license, what else could Leckrone possibly say? IMO, his options were to either say something completely ambiguous but potentially positive (as he did), or admit to a complete failure. This supports the argument you make in the post to which I refer above.

Back to lurk mode. Wasted far too much time already.... And I await a post with the observation that the only bolded word above is "I", which must be a result of my tremendously huge ego - ignoring context and void of any viable argument.

SGE