Thank you for recognizing that I am an intelligent person. We finally agree on something.
I'm sorry you feel the way you do with respect to this discussion. There has been a lack of company communication with shareholders, which even the company has acknowleged. PTSC claims that is due to master agreement restrictions along with court imposed restrictions.
Many here might be complaining about the lack of communication because they believe PTSC doesn't want to communicate. I do not know whether they have valid complaints or not, simply because it's been ages since people took a look at exactly what the master agreement says.
Further reading of the agreement confirms that maintaining the effectiveness of the patents was contemplated in the agreement. IMO, maintaining the effectiveness is referring to patent claims. Here are the two references that would cover such USPTO activity, imo. Note that maintaining patent effectiveness is subject to the 7.7 clause.
7.1 Protection and Maintenance of the MSD Patents. Subject to Section 7.7, Patriot, TPL and Moore, as well as each of Patriot's and TPL's appointees to P-Newco's Management Committee, shall use their respective best efforts to protect and maintain the MSD Patents, including taking all actions necessary to maintain the effectiveness of the MSD Patents.
7.7 No Interference. From the date hereof through the earlier of the Termination Date or the termination of the Commercialization Agreement, Patriot, Moore and P-Newco shall each avoid and refrain from any and all activity of any kind or nature which may impede, impair, frustrate or otherwise interfere with the activities of TPL in the execution of the commercialization program contemplated by the Commercialization Agreement,...
Can there be a different intepetation of these clauses?
Opty
