Thank you for your well written and thankfully reasonable answer without any aggression against me - this enables a constructive discussion.

Regarding the problems with TPL and the JV agreement please see my shortened hint that the birth defect was the agreement between three "partners" and you will see that I agree with you here (btw, I'm sure in a real life discussion we would agree on nearly all points the only difference is the allocation of fault/blame).

Now let's look at the different views we have regarding 'management':
You write "PTSC's BOD and management has always been weak." to which I agree with the exception of Pohl who made possible what was possible then.

This sentence leads to my experience with managers in the last 25 years:
60-80% were average - 18-38% were bad and 2% were extraordinary.

Now, what you call a "weak management" IMO is more a mixture of bad and average management IMO - why is this important for the assessment of what happened with PTSC in the last 20 years?
Because Patriot was faced with two fundamental tasks in its history with management not prepared for these tasks.

The first task was to establish their own processor:
it would have needed an extraordinary manager to survive against the likes of Intel, ARM and others (even AMD never managed to prevail against Intel, not because of technical deficits but Intel's management was far more smarter, which can be translated in more reckless...) - but they didn't have the right person on the top, because they would have needed a complete different person to establish their processor in the market and not a technical orientated guy.

While they saw their chances dwindle, they came to the only appropriate decision:
If you can't sell the technology, sell the intelligence behind.

As correct this decision was, as out of place was the former management prepared and capable for this task (the second task in PTSC's history), because either it would have taken an IP specialist or someone who recognized the need to partner with a powerful IP enforcement company.
Hence my assessment that Pohl was at least an average talented manager because he saw the deficiences and solved it with the latter = outsourcing of product research and sales to TPL/Alliacense.
I'm sure you won't argue that outsourcing costs money, therefore an agreement where TPL/Alliacense received their share of the MMP income was normal and reasonable - the additional agreements regarding the control of the MMP were massive mistakes which implications we suffer today.

To sum it up I see things with PTSC as following:
They made the right decisions (first, develop and produce a new processor, second, sell the IP) but never had the extraordinary manager which were needed for these challenging tasks.
And with exatrordinary manager being a very scarce lifeform the chances of getting one were and still are far too low.
Hence my attitude that the MMP is bigger than any management we could get (because 98% of them wouldn't be enough).