Virt,
I always look forward to seeing your posts and value your input. I have several questions for you, and I hope to receive answers simply because I value your opinion. I have no intention of arguing anything you might answer. So, if you would be so kind as to indulge me:
In point number 1, you disagree with SGE1 that future monies are tied to patent validation by PTO.
Do you believe, as Brian does, that the 10Q contained all monies in the settlement with the J's? No.
Or do you believe there are future payments or royalties in the settlement agreement? Yes,
Do you think TPL made their own agreement to sell licenses on their own patents to the Js, thus shafting PTSC? No, I do not.
What do you make of Judge Ward's oversight of the settlement? I believe the judge presides over the settlement to ensure the settlement is carried out to the letter and spirit of the agreement and that neither side twists the agreement to suit themselves. Ward will enforce the agreement as he has interpreted the words upon which the agreement has been agreeded upon by each of the parties.
Do you think the NDA was initiated by TPL or J's? the O'Jays
What about the restrictions on PTSC to trade? The agreement may have been written with this clause inserted by TPL intentionally. TPL may not have concluded their audit (assuming they were still determining the scope of the infringement for all 3 parties and the precise number of products were undetermined at teh time of the "business resolution". TPL did not want PTSC insiders to jump the gun sotospeak and buy mucho shares before TPL had completed their study. My speculation...
What is your take on RG's letter yesterday afternoon? Pure boilerplate, nothing informative, said very little, uninspiring, appeared he could legally say very little. Very guarded. Written by TPL lawyers? Dissapointing to say the least.
Virt
Thanks,
Tebdrew
