"My point remains, that relatively few of MMP licenses to date could have even possibly have been comingled with non-MMP"
That is simply not true. Perhaps there is an issue with the term "commingle". Obviously, when a TPL portfolio is negotiated simultaneously with a MMP license, commingling can occur, and revenue allocation can be tilted in favor of one over the other (with the disfavored one getting labeled "first-mover"). Likewise, but not so obvious, a TPL portfolio could be licensed (for an inflated price) and, in return, MMP infringement is not pursued on that licensor (a little quid pro quo per se, but one in which all revenue goes to you know who). Or, a TPL portfolio could be licensed, unannounced, and a pittance of a license could be announced for the MMP, thereby creating the appearance of a 'win' for the MMP, while concealing the TPL portfolio license. The potential variations for skinning this cat are perhaps endless.
I do not know everything that has occurred, but I do know how trangressions could easily occur given the proverbial license (no pun intended) to steal granted by our esteemed leaders, and I do know that we have filed a lawsuit which contains gravely serious allegations.
So for the last time, the original post stands, the Peter Principle applies, and the neck of the bottle still remains at the top.
