"If milestone can explain it so that SGE can understand, why can't I?! (No offence, SGE; I think you're smart but I like to solve cryptic crossword puzzles and this one's still got me beat.) "
I never said I understood it, and Milestone's arguments still make no sense to me (I bowed out of the conversation figuring I'd missed something along the way) - I still believe there was absolutely nothing in the 10Q that warranted trading restrictions, unless it was concerns about selling. But RG (Trust) bought, and since 10Q GF bought some, and now the company is buying. So we settled with the Js - it was publicly announced at the time. T&Cs of the settlement? Did you see ANYTHING in the 10Q about that?
Here's what I currently think, and it sorta fits with my theories about a "contingent on PTO" deal (big surprise! LOL). First, the 10Q IMO strongly suggests such a deal was done - especially when putting all the other puzzle pieces ("Current Attitude" series) together. No money (yet) from the Js.....hmmmmm. And no money from some 5-7 other licensees (post Jan) - if there was money paid then THEY WOULD HAVE TO REPORT IT. IMO, this suggests implementation of a new contracting method with no immediate money (i.e., contingent on USPTO). These puzzle pieces alone, properly assembled, point to exactly what the CC was about. Disguise.
But here's more the point I'm trying to make: At the moment in time when the deal with the Js was made, and the trading restriction was put in place, perhaps there was the thought that a USPTO decision was imminent. THAT, IMO, would be justification for trading restrictions. Things changed - got pushed out beyond those original expectations (re: USPTO). They couldn't hardly up and un-do the trading restrictions, could they? How stupid and suspicious would that look?
Now think about this: Again assuming my delusional conjecture is correct about a contingency deal, wouldn't there still be a desire, or requirement, to disguise the J numbers once they hit? Remember back in Jan/Feb, there was the opinion (mine, anyway) that there was a need to sign a bunch of licensees in order to disguise the J numbers (in the 10Q)? Made some sense, right?
Now look where we are. IMO, the J numbers may be announced on the heels of a positive USPTO decision - as an aggregate number. But wouldn't there still be a strong desire to disguise those numbers to make it more difficult to figure what the Js paid? Wouldn't this probably be required to be compliant with the MOU and CC? So how do you disguise the numbers in that scenario? Bingo! Give that man a Cigar! You line up several other licensees under the same contingency so that when the USPTO issues its positive decision ('148/'336), and the payment trigger is pulled, there's a shotgun blast of a bunch of affected licensees paying with the numbers reported as an aggregate sum - completely disguised/intermingled with 5-7 more licensees. And I suspect that, at that moment in time (or within a few days), PTSC would have to file an 8K, as this associated influx of money would be an unequivical "Material Event".
So why were the trading restrictions lifted? First, IMO, they were never really necessary. The people that KNOW the reality are already under NDA by virtue of their employment, and otherwise restricted from insider trading. But the USPTO outcome is not certain as to If or When, so the restrictions are now a red herring. Let me put it this way: If/when the USPTO issues its (positive) result, I'd bet dollars to donuts you won't see any officers of PTSC or TPL buying stock until AFTER the associated 8K is released.
Yes, I'm delusional, and KNOW nuttin'! These are just my silly opinions and thoughts....
Another friggin' novel, FWIW.
SGE
