The DECISION by PTSC to treat Licenses like this is purely VOLUNTARY, they CHOSE to hide Licenses in this manner
Back around mid 2006 PTSC changed their attitude on this, and began this new policy. They justified it as a recommendation from our accounting firm since we exclusively were only a licensing company, and as a means to provide a privacy incentive to signing licensees presumably because of the high fees they would pay, and lastly as a way to keep deals and details private from future infringers.
.
The point is that this license treatment can be changed at ANY time by the company. My belief is that since initially adopting this policy, they've refused to change it because it would have exposed the increasingly minimal fee results TPL and Alliasence were achieving. Yet, a fee analysis like Lambert's can easily be determined by reviewing PTSC's Qs, and any infringer who is faced with a high "potential exposure letter" will do just that; either that or they will simply ask around to their counterparts at competing companies if the License fee was painful or not. They may all be competitors, but it would be niave to think they do not cooperate at some level regarding "outsiders" attempting to benefit off of them all. Now, with the embarrassing and negative disclosures of the HTC trial public, the cat is CLEARLY out of the de minimis license fee bag.
.
It should be obvious to everyone by now that the likely real motivation for this is NOT in genuine response or desire to protect Licensees, but rather to insulate TPL and PTSC while they were making grandiose and bold claims to Shareholders and the industry; but in reality were actually accepting extremely small License fees in relation to the size of the infringing company or it's identified product's patent use. Unfortuntely, it's become quite clear to me that adopting and maintaining this policy is far less about protecting our Licensees, and far more about protecting the inner-workings of TPL and PTSC.

.
Aside from the MMP program's initial introduction, and PTSC's blow off trading, (coinicidently not unrelated to the extremely high share ownership concentration of a few debenture acquirers and the timely simutaneous announcement of "unprecedented" dividends), MMP Licensing has not been profitable for PTSC shareholders. The more the industry understood the strategies used, and the mindset of the management doing the licensing, the more licenses and license fees dried up; and the more interest in PTSC stock withered. The technology is not to blame, Management and Stewardship of the Licensing Program is.
.

Located in the heart of inventive Silicon Valley since the 1980s I believe, have you ever considered why TPL is not wildly successful as an exclusive licensing agent that represents more known companies, individual inventors or widely recognized technologies ? By my count, fully half of the licensing program portfolios (8) they offer are claimed as a inhouse TPL Group Innovations. Could it be that inventors and the inventive community is well aware of the capabilities, limitations and reputation of DL and his operations ?
.
To PTSC: .... Provide transparency and let our company succeed or fail based on the productiveness of our management and profitability of the Licensing program; and give YOUR investors a fair chance to make a reasoned and informed decision about how much risk they choose to take by investing in PTSC.
.
Any behavior short of this I suspect as having alterior motives personally advantaging Program insiders.