1. "Come back how? Sue us? On what basis?"

Ask TPL. As the Licensing Agent, they owed a Brown a superceeding payout that should have reduced the PDS split; just like TPLs 15% off the top of all Licensing Revenues as TPL's fee for licensing efforts. Could PTSC be subjected to suit under some sort of twisted Enrichment theory, or TPL be due under a Com Ag clause a simple refund due to TPL's accounting mistake in not paying Brown out first ? Perhaps, who knows. I believe that eventually somehow they'll put the arm on us, I have no doubt.

The bigger question is that knowing TPL had the Patent ownership for many years in advance of forming PDS, and that PTSC was empowering TPL with complete Agency control of the Patents, where is the language in the Agreements that addresses any payout obligations or MMP investor interest Pre-PDS ? Did anyone even check to see if Brown's agreement was Recorded, or if there was a UCC filing ? Perhaps PTSC knew of the Brown Agreement in advance and not think it applied to Gross receipts when they appointed TPL to be the Agent. Has PTSC ever denied knowing about it ? I didn't read that in Gloria's testimony. Did PTSC even enquire as to if there were minority MMP investors on TPL's side or if there was anything which would place a Cloud on the License receipts ?

Even storefront lawyers I know would have done that first thing, and they would have discovered the Brown issue and it's "gross income" implications long ago.

Did Carl and Gloria ?

2. Why would PTSC want to do that? You have some rational reason in mind?

PTSC has a long history of spending shareholder's money on insiders and those closely connected to the company. Look at Flower's huge voluntary bonuses, the voluntary severence payouts to the very Executives Gloria claimed didn't know what they were doing ... that's "cause" to fire and no severence would likely be due, the Gifforn litigation settlement, the Fish settlement, dividends on Warrants, etc, etc etc.

As far as TPL is concerned, what about subsequently paying extra or contributing additional monies to TPL or on TPL's behalf through PDS that were never originally required. re: .. TPL's lobbying/legislation funding of several hundred thousand dollars, Moore's new consultation contract for hundreds of thousands of dollars, and at least one other instance that I can't recall that was able to be discovered through the filings.

Based on the above, I guess once they do it you'd then call it "rational". lol

3. Brown is not the only carve-out. I recall mention at trial of other care-outs that TPL had agreed to. I see no reason for the CommAg to address Brown's carve-out or any of the others that were negotiated between TPL and 3rd parties. Why do think it ought to be addressed in the CommAg? What would be the rationale for it being included?

LOL, what was the reason for the new ComAg in the first place ? I think as Lamberts already stated, the new Agreement became a huge "carveout", an attempt to carveout the obligation to Brown. What else did it do ? It assured a flow of money to the Leckrone family's other company, Alliasense. What else did it do ? Have your friends at PTSC provided you with a complete copy of the new ComAg yet ? Post the new ComAg in it's entirety and then we'll know.