Through the end of the last fiscal year, May 31, 2012, there were 92 licensees of the MMP as best I can ascertain from filings and PR's. Also, through that date, and including an assumed $20M for Intel and $2.95M for AMD, the MMP has collected a total aggregate in license fees of $312,002,535. To collect that amount, it cost an aggregate of $65,994,348.

So in effect, the following applies:

• $3.391M - GROSS per license fee to date
• $0.717M - COST per license

• $2.685M - NET Profit per license available for 50/50 disbursement to PDS partners, this number takes into account some interest earned by PDS and tax provisions accounted for by PDS

Since with PTSC, optimistic scenarios have mostly always been proven erroneous, I'll simply assume that this per license scenario continues forward, until proven differently by TPL & PTSC.

So if you look at this from a PTSC dividend perspective, of the $2.68M, $1.34M would go to PTSC. Ignoring the cost to run PTSC and pay Cliff, Carlton and Gloria, but accounting for 35% corporate tax (I don't think there is a ton of tax loss carryover anymore and IMO, the only way we get to a dividend scenario is that the licensing is sufficent to have wiped out that carryover), that would leave $871K per license for distribution of dividends, or $0.00214 per share per license.

As there are basic costs of funding PDS ($8M captial fund) and running PTSC ($2M per year I think opty allotted), I'll simply say that the first 5 licenses signed in will wholly go toward those costs. After that PDS in theory is fully funded, so subsequent years, would only require 2 licenses to cover PTSC operating costs, leaving the rest for dividends.

So at $0.00214 dividend money per license, to reach a $1.20 in dividends over the next 6 years, or 20 cents per year, how many licenses does the MMP need? Based on these assumptions & analysis, they would need to sign 93 per year on top of the minimum needed to fund PDS & PTSC operations.

Obviously, if you double the net license fee, you would HALVE the number of licenses needed. And in reality, if you double the GROSS license fee to, for example $6.78M, the NET fee should increase by more than double, as the cost per license shouldn't, (in theory anyway), need to increase. So in that instance, PTSC would net $3.033M from PDS and $1.971M after taxes. In that scenario, 1 license nearly funds PDS fully, and 1 more nearly funds PTSC fully, so to get to a 20 cent annual dividend, we'd be down to 41 additional licenses per year.

With TPL's sordid history on the expenses side, I'm hard pressed to assume that the expenses will ever diminish from the historical average even though they logically should. Rather, I'm even inclined to expect a slight increase based on the assumption the new counsel is on some type of contingency agreement.

All that being said, the MMP's most prolific licensing year (Fiscal Year 2008) included 26 licenses, so it seems possible that with positive ITC or T3 results, higher volume is achievable. Whether we'll see such an increase remains to be seen, but IMO, since the financial info lags by up to 6 months for some fiscal periods, reducing the dividend models to a relationship to number of licenses, while certainly less precise, seems most sensible in predicting what might happen and would be the best way to attract new investors.

So, if someone could please place a call to Cliff and get him cracking on 10-15 license signings per quarter, we might see a ACTUAL reason to pay a bonus, lol.

Then again, until things change, they are the same.