Didn't ignore your Ts & Os, but there's a big difference between stating things as fact, and then using those facts to draw conclusions that would be covered by the Ts & Os disclaimer, and qualifying your "facts" with comments that show them to be pure conjecture on your part as the $60M or $30M INTC license fee range proves it to be.
Kinda like me saying "Bernie Madoff got 20 years for his crime, by Mark4321 only got 1 year for his crime, and that obviously, you paid off the judge in your case. Ts & Os."
"OK, my second guess is that you got 6 months! If that's not right, I give up!"
LOL. I understand and understood your point, I simply cautioned you to not to post as fact what you clearly held as conjecture with respect to license fees. Your Ts and Os cover the opinion/theory part of your post, not the "facts" on which you drew that opinion/theory. Big difference IMO, and considering all we know about Intel from the public info is that we got $10M from them, which might imply that TPL got $20M, or could mean that TPL got $100M, or $500M from them. We'll likely never know as all we know is the portion that PTSC received as part of the JV.
Not trying to make a Federal Case out of it, but when when we've been told we received $10M, as part of the agreement to form the 50/50 partnership, and that implies Intel would have paid around $20M in total, and you state matter of factly that we received $60M, it bears questioning your facts. That's info that's been quite well discussed here, so if you're that far off on that, and you make the posts you do, I wonder what else you throw out as Ts and Os qualified "facts". I think it hurts your credibilty when you post thus, so I was trying to help qualify and understand your sources.
I will tell you that what I have ascertained from the company is that TPL did not give us a full 50% of the Intel license fee. So who knows what Intel paid. Maybe the did pay $500M. If so, your point is less valid, wouldn't it be?
