" I actually think that IMO the (5?) licensees in Feb were also contingency arrangements (the contracting precedent having been established with the Js), and that's why all the goofiness about that. The 10Q was REQUIRED to show monies received throughout the quarter. In the prior license deals, the license was the trigger for payment. If I'm correct, then no money was received from those Feb licensees. "
1) Extrapolating your point above might lead one to believe no future monies will flow to PTSC until the re-exams are complete and PTSC patents are validated? I think not. Please elaborate.
2) Contracting precedent???....TPL is negotiating each license individually. No one knows the T&C's negotiated with the J3 except TPL. Certainly, TPL has no incentive to set the terms based on patent validation. The other side may but at what cost to themselves?..Don't you think other prior licensees have already tried that tactic?..TPL obviously convinced them that option was not economically viable to the perspective licensee.
Virt
