May I offer a couple of corrections/clarifications, and an opinion?
First, I believe we've notified many more than 400 companies of their infringement. We heard a number from Lecky, what?, two years ago that they had notified 485 at that point in time. And, if I recall correctly, we've heard that Alliacense is identifying 200 infringing products a month, on average. Not 200 companies, 200 products. I'm open to correction on any of this. But I believe the number of identified/notified infringers is far greater than 400. They are supposedly in active discussions with 225 as of the AMS.
Second, the "TPL is getting about 80% with 20% going to Phoenix". IMO, either this was very poorly communicated, or not clearly understood. But the essence of what I strongly suspect is in this quoted statement. I believe what they are saying is that currently 80% stays with Alliacense to fund their ongoing investigative, legal, coordination with infringers, etc., activities. The "profit" money to be distributed to PTSC and TPL goes to PDS for distribution.
The 80% other monies fund the ongoing effort - and rightfully so. As we are aware, there is a limited time to act. Now consider the costs associated with their endeavor. Facilities in Silicon Valley, one of the most expensive areas in the world. Likewise, facilities in Paris (on a smaller scale), assuming they still exist. I do not know Alliacense's current headcount, but it was once reported to be 50. Most of these people would probably be EEs and lawyers. They don't come cheap. A talented EE in Silicon Valley can expect at least $150K/year, minimum. Do the numbers. This is an expensive endeavor, but an essential one. IMO, if anything, more resources should be directed to Alliacense. The future of this investment is virtually dependent on their effort. Keep in mind that it is probably Alliacense money that is funding Henneman and the legal teams as well.
As for pursuing an SEC attorney, as I have suggested previously, I believe we should give it till the 90-day mark and see if anything pans out. Then initiate action if warranted at the planning level. Withhold action on the plan until after the 120 days have elapsed if we see a conflict between the company's stated intent and their actions. No actions, conflicting actions and/or no communication with shareholders after the 120 days, then go for it via most prudent avenues towards change.
In the last couple of days there has been some controversy regarding our 120 day expectations in contrast with what was actually stated at the AMS. Assuming that those who insist that the BoD does read this message board are correct, then IMO the issue of what was actually stated has become somewhat moot. Shareholder expectations are reflected here, repeatedly. And Gloria's email was posted here, repeatedly. They KNOW our expectations. And I think they know what to expect to happen if our expectations are not (at least partially) met.
JMHOs,
SGE
