One of the Infringing Parties was claiming that the Moore/TPL dispute was of some sort of significance to the continuation/determination of their case.

But lets backtrack .. The present case in question that was just settled, was the Moore dispute with Leckrone over nonpayment of Moore's share of licensing revenues due him by Leckrone. There was also an issue over whether Moore transferred actual ownership in the MMP to Leckrone, or rather, did he only (or only intend to) transfer the licensing Authority to Leckrone and pay leckrone through a negotiated percentage of Moore's share of the receipts.

The issues central to the Moore/TPL case had/has nothing to do with PTSC, and as I indicated, PTSC was not even a Party to that suit. Even the just now PTSC PR describes it as the Moore and TPL litigation.

I'm just wondering if the Moore PR was just crafted too loosly and without any attention to what they were implying in how it was written.