"No, I didn't "miss the fact". Maybe you should research a bit before you post your opinions. The FACT is that, for Q410, PTSC reported $1.38M in MMP license revenue to PDS. Arcelik was the only "announced" license in that period. The next quarter, they reported ZERO MMP revenues.
Additionally, in the court filings there have been references to PTSC requesting that the monies be placed on hold. So in light of the totality of the info, the likelihood that Apple revenues are included in the $1.38M of the contemporaneous filings is pretty slim."
Incredibly, you argue that it doesn't appear that "Apple" licensing was included in fiscal May 2010, but somehow argue that it WAS included in May 2011 when the info you cite says a license was signed in April 2010? Then you point out that PTSC requested that the monies be put on hold, which supports my theory that no license was ever actually consumated, and you STILL think there is an Apple license included in May 2011. Doesn't make sense, pure and simple. I'm sure you'll argue, as you often do, that there's simply info out there that I haven't seen because I haven't done my DD. Yet for some reason you won't cite the specific info that supports your statement.
" In hindsight, I don't deny it could be misconstrued as such to the drive-by reader."
That's generally who I worry about seeing misinformation. Shame on me.
"you have yet to explain your view of how this is misleading or illogical."
I thought I explained that in stating a reader would get the impression that it was PTSC, not PDS, that may be in trouble come September 30. PTSC is safe until May 2012 according to reporting standards.
