You miss my point. Check & balance/oversight/performance to metrics requirements and reporting should have been incorporated in the contract/agreement. That's how it is done. It wasn't, and that was the agreed failure on the part of the BoD. If not stipulated in the contract, the contractor (TPL/Alliacense) was under no obligation to supply same. End of story.

But again, this is Monday morning quarterbacking. Assuming the settlement agreement/ComAg was a take-it-or-leave proposition, would it have been wise to opt for the alternative of going back to court, and the associated risk (not to mention cost in terms of time and money)? Fiduciary duty? Risking everything is fiduciarily responsible? An unanswerable question IMO.

As far as the follow-on agreement, apparently you disagree that any advancement was made as I describe. On the contrary, you say "give Alliacense even more power". That I simply don't understand....perhaps with the exception that, per one of the subsequent agreements (the PDS/Alliacense Agreement), Alliacense cannot be replaced.

The take-away here is that I totally agree (as always) that the contract/ComAg was ill conceived from the standpoint of oversight and reprecussions of poor performance. It is also so "loose" as to inhibit action for perceived poor performance since a threshold for "adequate" performance in any aspect was not stipulated. IMO there should have at least been stipulations for performance of target ID and business analysis, reverse engineering, and formal notifications. Nothing happens without these actions, none of which would be impacted by such things as never-ending (it seemed) re-exams and redundant (PTO foul up) re-exams, litigation (how many years?), and other things that may inhibit actual licensing.

So now we have revisited the ancient past. The debate over whether the BoD et al should have accepted a probable take-it-or-leave-it proposition could go on endlessly.

Interestingly, I have not seen a single response to my question "I just wonder what people would like to see the BoD do differently" from their current path under present circumstances, with time ticking away. I recognize that any such "suggestions" would be questionable simply because WE are not privy to much info to work with. And, as I've said, the BoD is probably in a similar predicament as far as altering paths since outcomes on actions in process are not readily predictable.

FWIW,

SGE