""PTSC's declarations confirm it was hugely discounted"
PTSC said it was misallocated, not hugely discounted. There's a difference."
Hmmmm..... is there REALLY a difference?
Let's say, TPL signs Apple for all their portfolios for a lump sum of $20M, for example, to use round numbers. And that covers CoreFlash, FastLogic, OnSpec and MMP. For argument's sake, let's say that of the fee the charged, they "allocate" 30% to CF, 40% to FastLogic, 10% to OnSpec, and 20% to MMP. That would mean that Apple will have paid $4M for the MMP license.
In contrast, let's say TPL licenses the MMP to Apple for the "discounted" price of $4M, contingent on the understanding and agreement that Apple will also purchase licenses for TPL's other 3 patent portfolios, and the agreement that these licenses would also cover any patents that TPL acquuires in the future, let's say the next 3 years. TPL negotiates this deal with Apple for the other portfolios and the "patent peace" of mind that Apple will have with future patents, for $16M.
YES, I SEE IT! TOTALLY DIFFERENT! I stand corrected.
Switching gears, it strikes me as odd that the most VALUABLE COMPANY IN THE WORLD, and perhaps the pre-eminent icon of technology, and especially technology RICH in microprocessors, and there have been individual "first mover discounted" licenses sgned in the $30M range, $25M range, $22M range...etc.... and now 6 years down the licensing path, USPTO Reexamined patents in tow, J3 settlement in the bag, and no one knows that Apple has signed an MMP license? Moreover, there's no talk of Apple, with "all that they are", bringing in a $30M license fee, a $40M license fee, or anything of that sort? Common sense....... I wonder how to apply it here..... Hmmmmmmm.........
