Initially, I dont know any more then you do but you are the one misstating the facts and twisting the logic. I am just as frustrated with some of the developments as anyone and maybe I have a more optimistic slant then you and some others but I am still a realist and believe I can objectively evaluate the information that we do have. Lets start with your statement:
This is now the second time our CEO has gone out of his way to imply that all settlement money has been received, yet no one believes him.
First off, there is a bit of a contridiction to say someone went out of their way to make an implication. More importantly, show me where in his letter RG says all settlement money has been received or even implies it? What he actually said was:
"While all licensees to date have chosen lump sum front-end buy-outs..."
Which I would agree closes the door to the royalty argument, but that is a far cry from saying "all settlement money has been received" Even a lump sum buyout can be spread over several payments. Further, nothing in the letter is contrary to the USTPO/contingency theory and I would argue the conspicuous absence of any mention of the USTPO review combined with his reminder that "...the details of individual licenses cannot be disclosed" in this exact same section lends more support to the contingency theory then takes away from it. Just to recap some of the many arguments that have already been made that there most likely is more to the J3 settlement (payments on a lump sum and/or contingency):
1. I have yet to hear a good argument why TPL would have accepted a weak settlement given the strong position they had going into trial. (Prior settlements, Markman). There is a risk anytime you go to trial so us trial attorneys have to evaluate that risk everytime and compare it with whatever settlement is on the table. The lower the risk the better the settlement offer would have to be to not go forward. To take a bad deal, and agree to make it confidential no less, makes no logical sense at all. Why not just go forward and take our chances with the trial they had been preparing for, for the last few years? Anyone?
2. I have yet to hear a good argument that explains the term "business resolution" and "both sides are happy" for a simple bad settlement where the J3 pays very little? Anyone?
There are many others but the point is if you look at the information objectively, IMO the most reasonable explanation for the above is that not all settlement money has been received. Of course I could be wrong, but I do not think I am a complete idiot for comming to that conclusion; its based on something.
Next, I do not put a lot of weight on some off the cuff comment that Schwartz may or may not have said about the stock price. If made, I believe his estimate was probably correct if we went forward to a judicial determination and therefore no NDA. Just because we did not we do have a NDA does not mean the settlement could not be considered a win, if fact the fact that an NDA was agreed to makes it reasonable to conclude the terms must have been good for us.
Finally, I agree that the dividend payout earlier was a mistake and that money could have been put to much better use if applied to M&A activity. The BOD got greedy. That being said, our current, mostly new, BOD voted against any further dividends and are now making the right decision.
Bottom line is I resent your implication that anybody who still thinks PTSC has huge upside potential is either an idiot or out of touch. Maybe PTSC does not, but there are reasonable and logical reasons for thinking it does.
