You are correct, I am ignorant in actual litigation of such disputes and their resolution, so I happily concede to your obvious superior knowledge and experience. And you are right, to ignore your input would be the height of stupidity. Please pardon my temporary insanity!
However, I do have a good deal of contract proposal, negotiation and administration experience (~12 yrs), and I do know that every condition of a contact comes with a price attached, if it's an "issue". Expedited production/delivery, special payment handling, inclusion of a patent indemnification clause, NDA, etc., etc., has a price attached to it, either by setoff with another condition or by adjustment of price. It all depends on the perceived value of the conditions to the parties involved. In my experience, inclusion/exclusion of an NDA rarely was an issue (it was in our Standard Terms and Conditions when selling product); I only recall it becoming an "issue" a couple of times in my tenure. Inclusion of a Patent Indemnification Clause was in our ST&Cs on the procurement side. This does demonstrate how commonplace these conditions are (and reveals my surprise that we haven't "bumped our heads" on Patent Indemnification much more frequently). I don't recall ever encountering a Confidentiality Clause such as the one in question. But such would inherently come into play for highly classified programs - not because of inclusion of a clause, but as a mandate per the regs (DoD Directive 5220.20-M).
Obviously, yet another time I should just shut up and listen more intently.
And I do understand the word "ignorant", but appreciate your providing the definition for others who may have taken that word as an insult. When I use it, I usually provide the meaning as well so as not to unintentionally offend (it's a dangerous word!, ironically because many people are ignorant of what that word really means!).
As for the dollar values thing, I'm in close agreement with Borredo. I believe in his numbers he meant dollars to PDS (though I don't believe he specified), not the result to PTSC. And I have two "sets of books" on this - my opinion of market perception, and my own perception.
In my opinion of market perception: $50M to PDS would be a "so-so" deal, $100M would be a good deal, $150M+ would be a great deal. And, getting to what I think is your point/objective in posing the question, I think anything greater than $50M would be perceived by the market as a "win" (even though our net, after costs and taxes, would be negligible).
In my personal perception with the history I know (specifically the Fujitsu license): $100M to PDS would be "so-so", $150M would be good, $200M+ would be great. And, based on ignorance or not, I still regard the mere fact that we settled as a win. Just as I regard every new license as a "win". Each is a negotiated agreement that the opposition didn't have to make. Obviously, the market doesn't "feel" the same sans numbers, as reflected in our PPS.
Taking that plunge was easy! I, like I'm sure everyone else here, have pondered these numbers a lot! LOL And it should be obvious that I rarely fear voicing my opinion - based on ignorance or not! ;-)
As for comments I may have made about "the dollars must be huge", if I used the word "must" I must have slipped up. I typically qualify such statements by using words like "are probably", "may be", or "should be" - and always followed by an "IMO".
I appreciate your continued patience, and your return to the board.
SGE
