"... per what has been announced, there have only been seven opportunities in which commingling could have possibly occurred?"
Oh really. How do you know what licenses TPL has entered into, in totality, including not just those "announced", but unannounced? How do you know how many infringers perhaps got a 'pass' on an MMP license in return, for say, licensing a TPL portfolio, that may or may not have been announced by them or Alliacense? I could go on.
The massive conflict of interest inherently resulting from the com ag, and the consolidation of power into TPL's hands, a private entity, creates boundless opportunity for abuse along with all the other alleged trangressions as listed in the complaint.
In my opinion it is quite simple to understand what was being traded away for what was being received in return, and why, and how. How interesting it would be to depose all the licensors of TPL portfolios (announced and unannounced) in order to find out how the deals all came down. It would likely be highly enlightening.
The original post stands ..................... and The Peter Principle indeed applies.
