I hope in the future, you will call Cliff on his attempts to obfuscate rather than clarify when you ask him questions. The issue of license count is a very simple one, and not at all convoluted or hard to nail down as Cliff communicated to you.

IN FACT, this very issue was addressed with them 4-5 years ago when PTSC and TPL would often be off on their license counts by 2. This was the difference of the Intel & AMD licenses being included or not, and even then it had nothing to do with subsidiaries, etc. IN RESPONSE TO THAT CONFLICT, PTSC & TPL came out and BOTH named Mattel as the 40th license sold. They continued with that congruence, and in 2010, issued contemporaneouse PR's listing Caterpillar as the 70th licensee.

ADDITIONALLY, as anyone can read in the license documents that HAVE been posted here through PACER filings, or otherwise, OUR OWN LICENSE AGREEMENT lists that the Licensee is the Corporate Parent Entity as well as any affiliated entity that that Corporate Entity has control over. They IN TOTAL make up the "Licensee" and thus the license that covers all of those "entities" is actually only ONE LICENSE by definition in our own licensing document. This is the very FIRST definition listed in the agreements under section 1.1.

So BY DEFINIITION, the last 10q included a VERY DEFINABLE number of licenses, and had he been WILLING to disclose it, he could only disclose it ONE WAY, as a "License" is clearly defined.

I hope Cliff will consider being more forthright in the upcoming PR campaign.