The following is my reply to your reply to one of my posts. Confused yet? LOL To simplify the reading/following of this discussion for you, me and everyone else, I've copy/pasted your reply (which contains excerpts from my post), replacing your "you" and "me" designations with "SGE" and "Brian" so that it'll be clear "who said what" in these posts. To further assist (I hope), my latest/newest discussion is in bold print. Hopefully this will remove confusion and allow an improved further discussion, if desired.

SGE: With all due respect, please explain how it would be best for PTSC shareholders to shut off the infringer identification/notification engine NOW. Even under the best of circumstances, that IS what would happen.

Brian: Nonsense, noone is going to shut it off. Infact, I submit that because TPL had/has complete control (via Alliasence) of the entire process of Notification, teardown, correspondence, tiers, categories, etc, that it is HE who has complete discretion to shut off the licensing efforts by slow playing or being uncooperative with companies if he chooses. I also suspect that in many past quarters when we had zero licenses, he did just that as a way to squeeze concessions out of PTSC.

SGE: Okay, to put this in context, the above excerpt came to my respectful reply to Deb's suggestion, or more DEMAND, since it was immediately followed with essentially a threat of initiating SEC action against the PTSC BoD if they didn't immediately act on "TPL needs to be replaced NOW." Further, this strongly suggests that somehow, with no explanation of how, the PTSC BoD is capable of making this happen and would find it a wise move, and under present circumstances:

- Valid patents.

- An infringement verdict (which directly involved TI, and indirectly Qualcom and ARM) and a door wide open, IMO, to notification of literally hundreds/thousands of additional infringing entities.

- Less than two years until '336 patent expiration. More to the point I keep making, less than two years in which to notify and start the money clock for whatever time remains between notification date and expiration date.

- A settlement agreement in place between PTSC and TPL which provides PTSC a great deal more power/control at PDS, a far greater visibility of and involvement in of the operations of Alliacense (BTW, Brian, not to be pissy, but that is the correct spelling of Alliacense - you misspell it fairly consistently, a distraction).

- A settlement agreement between Moore and TPL in which TPL retains rights to ownership of a significant portion of the MMP, plus other provisions, no doubt, that would further complicate the removal of TPL from the picture (how can they un-do that?).

- DL/TPL in Bankruptcy, with a Bankruptcy Committee and Bankruptcy Court in place as an additional watchdog over the operations of TPL and its wholly-owned subsidiary Alliacense.

- And finally, as Brian clearly states "TPL had/has complete control (via Alliasence) of the entire process of Notification, teardown, correspondence, tiers, categories, etc, that it is HE [Leckrone] who has complete discretion to shut off the licensing efforts by slow playing or being uncooperative with companies if he chooses."

But in your reply, cited above, you begin by saying "Nonsense, noone is going to shut it off." [the infringer identification/notification process]. Then follow with discussion of how DL is the only one who could possibly do that. You've apparently missed the point I've been trying to make through this entire thread: IF PTSC initiates a dispute with Leckrone that threatens his current posture, especially at this point in the game, HE WILL REACT - WITH NEAR ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY based on the history YOU cite - by shutting off the the infringer identification/notification process. Cause, and affect. This with the assumption that what you are saying is actually true, that being that DL actually CAN react in this classic fashion. If he can, he will - if threatened. Any action initiated by PTSC, or Moore for that matter, to remove DL/TPL will be considered a threat (DUH!).

SGE: That is unless you believe that DL/TPL/Alliacense would be cooperative to the extreme as we put them out of business.

Brian: Put who out of business ? Didn't you read that we (I) want to continue to utilize the resources of Alliasence ? I just think it's about time we had someone besides DL or Alliasence themselves monitoring their own activities and productiveness. Certainly Carl isn't, that's not what his position is for, nor does he have the time with his 3 public company responsibilities as well as Swartz responsibilities and the half dozen other capacities that he maintains with ES and Mr K.

SGE: "Put who out of business?" - I thought that was pretty clear. A "/", or virgule, means "or" or "and/or". DL, TPL and/or Alliacense.
"Didn't you read that we (I) want to continue to utilize the resources of Alliasence?". Nope, I must have missed that - because what I read, repeatedly, was your subject line from YOUR post that initiated this entire thread:

"Why TPL and Alliasence need to be removed from control of MMP licensing"

Just reading that, it strongly (IMO) implies that you want to do away with, eliminate, disband Alliacense and start from scratch. That's the only way you could achieve ABSOLUTE control. And if we were to hire-out the effort, as I suspect we would have to do if we had any hope of having a running operation before the patents expire, then we're back to square one, albeit without DL or Mac or any current/past employee of Alliacense (since I strongly suspect that their employment contracts contain a standard "no compete" clause, along with prohibitions from sharing, using or in any way benefiting from any Alliacense proprietary data/knowledge). Then a level of "control" is lost, because PTSC would not be directly writing the paychecks. And the elapsed time while trying make all these things happen?

But aah, you say you were talking about CONTROL of Alliacense whose services you want to retain, and wanting someone to be watching the store, so to speak, besides DL/TPL/Alliacense themselves.

I agree, this is not Carl's job, necessarily, as a full-time activity. But it is Cliff's job near full time (especially since liquidation/write-off of former acquisitions), also Gloria's job part time, and Charlie Hoge's job when appropriate. Further control is applied via the TPL/PTSC Settlement Agreement and perhaps the Moore/TPL Settlement Agreement, and the fact that, at the moment, PTSC has the "deep pockets" to keep Alliacense afloat. After all, DL/TPL is placed (or has placed themselves, assuming what you say is true regarding off-shore accounts and such) in a position where they must APPEAR to be flat broke. And as I keep saying, we now have the Bankruptcy Committee consisting of creditors of DL/TPL and the Bankruptcy Court to provide extreme (to the extend legally possible) added monitoring and control of the activities/expenditures of Alliacense. Personally, I am at maximum possible comfort level under present circumstances (interestingly, circumstances largely created by DL himself).

And if anything were to change regarding Alliacense, what happens to the other patent portfolios they manage, all - I believe - owned outright by DL?

SGE: And how would this be possible with the Bankuptcy Committee breathing down, in this scenario, OUR necks? It seems the worst possible time, even if it were remotely possible, especially with DL/TPL being essentially under the control of others; PTSC, Bankruptcy Court/Committee. And the clock ticks....

Brian: While the Bankrupty does constrain and monitor TPL's activities, Alliasence is not a part of the BK proceedings, it is an independent Delaware LLC entity. As far as the Bankruptcy Committee (Creditors Committee), DL and his children are the largest single Creditor block, at just about 50% of the $70M.

SGE: To assure understanding of context, the above excerpt immediately followed my sentence "That is unless you believe that DL/TPL/Alliacense would be cooperative to the extreme as we put them out of business."

Okay, so you are suggesting that the Bankruptcy Committee and Bankruptcy Court has zero to do with oversight/monitoring/control of TPL's one (to my knowledge) money-generating wholly-owned subsidiary. After all, TPL is merely an umbrella corporation with a slew of subsidiaries with, again, but ONE (Alliacense) entity clearly capable of enabling funding to PDS, and therefore to TPL, and therefore to enable recovery of creditors' money. It defies all logic. Put another way, if they are not watching TPL's one money-generating wholly-owned subsidiary, what ARE the monitoring/controlling? The end results of Alliacense's endeavors ($-> PDS, PDS->TPL), and not their methods or, more importantly/pertinent, expenditures? Also, aside from that, are DL and/or his kids capable of generating any significant money with which to satisfy obligations to creditors? I seriously doubt it - maybe small dings but no dents.

And ONLY some $35M - certainly nothing to get excited about (Sarcasm intended).

SGE: I apologize, but I just don't follow your reasoning. I'm certainly no fan of DL, and it sure would be nice to be completely rid of him, but the consequences for US would IMO be probable destruction at this point in the game. This again, even if such a move were remotely possible under present circumstances. We couldn't possibly restart the Identification/Notification engine fast enough, and every day lost equates to less in potential revenues.

Brian: Ridiculous, were that the situation, then the "change" from TPL to Alliacense would have created the "destruction" you're suggesting. What will change, is oversight, management, accountability and sensitive ftf (or telephonic) discussions from a non DL entity.

SGE: Wasn't it you who argued vigorously, at the time, that the "change" from TPL to Alliacense was not a substantive change at all, since Alliacense remained under the direct control of DL/TPL. Didn't you (too) come to the conclusion that the "change" was merely a legal ploy in an unsuccessful (I believe) attempt to escape certain obligations to others (e.g., Brown)? So no, it caused no destruction like I fear from what you, Deb and others DEMAND today. Ridiculous you say? This response is ridiculous - apples and oranges.

SGE: How many formal Notifications and Data Packs, with present knowledge (TI, et al), in their crudest but acceptable form, could potentially be produced in a day by Alliacense? Form letter with blanks filled in and boiler-plate Data Pack. This recognizing that Alliacense SHOULD have, by now, a huge bank of data regarding probable infringers (e.g., at least some of TI's 80,000 customers, that number per TI). Even with "small" infringing entities, and only few per day, every day lost would potentially equate to big bucks abandoned.

Brian: See above answer.. I do note however, that "small" licensing delays in the past never seems to bother you. As far as abandoning the "big bucks" .. look at the hundreds of millions of claimed infringment dollars TPL abandoned from their negotiations from just the 3 infringers I exampled in my post.

SGE: Typically, I have been very vocal, and proactive I might add, when we've experienced licensing delays. A prime example was when the PTO engaged in a redundant re-exam of the '336 - to examine the exact same prior art claims as the prior successful re-exam. I've also been vocal about licensing that I felt pre-mature, in that IMO much more money could have been gleaned after a expected future event - like a successful re-exam. Recall that when there was that ridiculous settlement with Apple, we were mired in the above-mentioned redundant re-exam - if we had the redundant success, or better yet the PTO hadn't fouled up and initiated that redundant re-exam, I'm certain our negotiating position would have been much stronger. But at that moment in April, there had been zero response to Henneman's March letter to the examiner clearly stating that the re-exam was indeed redundant, unnecessary and should be terminated. Validity of the '336 remained vulnerable. I, like everyone, wish they'd held off on that one, and others. And the BoD reacted swiftly.

As has been explained (gcduck, I believe), with naturally limited knowledge of an infringer's true exposure, of course you, the damaged party, are going to initially suggest some outrageous number knowing full well that the number will be refined considerably in the fact finding/negotiation process. Would you rather shoot low, with the fantasy that if your demand is too low, the infringer will happily correct that figure upward? That, or just jump on the incorrectly low number you initially demand? Seriously?

SGE: And if we acquired a new Licensing Agent, departing from TPL/Alliacense, what would happen to that "Infringer Data Bank" built by TPL/Alliacense? I strongly suspect it would be either lost or otherwise encumbered for a lengthy period of time - time we DON"T HAVE LEFT. The Money Clock starts upon Notification.

Brian: Once again, you're misrepresenting what we are suggesting PTSC do. BESIDES..... PDS IS the "new Licensing agent" as of the date of the new ComAg in 2012, so this part of your argument is all wet too.

SGE: Pardon my lack of clarity and/or poor choice of words, though it should have been somewhat clarified by use of the word/title "Alliacense". For more clarity, "the entity actually performing the research, engineering, identification, notification and non-litigation-derived licensing of the MMP". But you say that you want to somehow retain these services of Alliacense. Refer to above discussion. How can you possibly "get there from here"?

SGE: I suggest you do as I and take comfort in the fact that DL is under tremendous scrutiny as I keep saying in recent posts. Consider this: if we jumped ship and were fortunate enough to replace TPL as Licensing Agent in a heartbeat, would we enjoy the oversight and control of that new agent's actions/decisions that we currently enjoy? Probably not.

Brian: Please stop making it up as you go along.

SGE: Though rude, I get your point. Yup, PDS is now the designated "Licensing Agent", not TPL. Again, see above discussion regarding replacing the services of Alliacense.

The bottom line in all of this pretty much comes down to one thing, which gcduck pointed to early on. HOW? What is your detailed plan you wish the BoD to pursue?

The benefit of our little debate thus far suggests that there are so many hurdles, encumbrances, complexities, entanglements and, ultimately, TIME KILLERS in you folks' proposition as to make it, in my very strong opinion, pointless thought. Then consider the possible negative impact of discussing such things, and making unrealistic demands and threats if your seriously flawed proposal is not immediately adopted.

But, alas, SOS.... Positive event, PPS spike, the expected moderate pull-back, bashing and threats against the BoD, and then back to near pre-positive-event levels.

Oh, and for those who ALWAYS say negative posts have no impact, apparently they forget an occasion some 6-7 years ago that proved beyond any doubt that what gets posted here can have a definite and immediate impact on the PPS. The occasion I'm recalling can hopefully be verified by others. What had happened occurred on a Friday morning, I recall (usually a dead trading day). I believe it was one of the Wilke boys (Paul?) who had made contact with someone at the PTO and asked for status regarding a re-exam (very early on). The PTO person advised that the re-exam action had been terminated, and this was kindly reported right here on Agora (and spread from here to other message boards). The PPS immediately spiked in a big way to the positive with a lot of volume. We're talking 30-40% and over a million shares (2 million?). People questioned the info, innocently posted here. Paul (or Bill) again called the PTO rep and asked more questions only to find that there had been a mix-up/communication breakdown, if I recall it revolved around confusion of the patent number versus the re-exam application number. As soon as the error was discovered, it was reported here with appropriate apologies for a purely innocent error. The PPS dropped back to previous levels. The entire event took only two to three hours, start to finish. All because of a post here. Nothing else, no other source (other than rehash of the Agora post elsewhere) and, after all, it turned out to be faulty info. If it can happen to the positive, it can happen to the negative. And it does. Witness what happened last week. Or turn a blind eye.

FWIW, and if people don't understand my biggest concern by now (TIME!), they never will.

SGE