Thank you for you insight with respect to the settlement.
<to allow the appellate court to decide a dispute that in fact no longer exists would constitute a sham >
I certainly agree with you on that, if in fact a decision by the appeallate court is not a required part of the settlement.
As presently written, that settlement pr seems to leave the door open to the possibility.
<Patriot Scientific Corporation and The TPL Group today announced that they have jointly reached an agreement to resolve and settle all claims and issues between them regarding their Joint Venture for the commercialization of the MMP Portfolio. >
An agreement to resolve, as opposed to a settlement that resolves, is simply agreement on a process to settle all claims. I realize that communication skills are lacking at PTSC, but to come up with the "agreement to resolve" as opposed to a settlement that resolves, is really going out of their way to confuse us, unless it means what it says.
But I do appreciated your thoughts on this, and if you have additional ones relative to what I said above, I hope you will post them.
Opty
