"Shareholders are not privy as to how TPL establishes value for the MMP for each company - piecemeal and/or whole for each alleged infringer. That is very sensitive information. Each case is different. The business environment is very fluid. Products come and go. Why would TPL want their marketing strategy public?? This logic escapes me."

I'm not sure how you can state that each case is different, environment fluid, etc. right after stating that sharehoders aren't privy to how TPL establishes value. Truth is we have no clue to know if each case is different, same or if Bonzo the chimpanzee is establishing the license fees based on how many bananas he eats that day. It could well be exactly the opposite, for example, that there is a fixed royalty rate per chip, or a percentage royalty rate per chip, or per chip per product, etc. I know in some of the court documents I saw, there were suggestions of specific pricing models.

I dont' disagree that there should be flexibilty. And there can be flexibility in all the aspects you highlight, even in a standardized pricing system. Rambus has pricing models based on a percentage royalty rate and that adjusts with time, type, and the age of the product. I'm not suggesting there shouldn't be.

Ignoring "promotional" strategies like the "first mover discount" (I have to lol at that a bit as it's turned out to be exactly the opposite in most cases), what I am suggesting is that if you have 2 comparable companies with comparable product offerings that comparably infringe, one company shouldn't be paying a huge amount and another a relatively small amount if it's for essentially the same IP in the same quantities of products. IMO, that delegitimizes the licensing and turns it into more of a "shake down" than into an actual professional endeavor.

I'd love to hear what others know regarding the typical types of royalty structures. I wouldn't be surprised to find that it's more standardized than haphazard. I also believe there are regulatory issues of competive advantages and pitfals of discriminatory claims if there is not some "reasonable" royalty rate structure.

Mainly what I'm suggesting is some way for the company to provide visibility into the business plan / licensing strategy that provides some predictability and metrics for investors to measure and anticipate company performance.

And by "no longer disappointed", I'm sure you are NOT referring to the Lions, or the NHL Lockout! lol