If I were PTSC, I would ask my self “How do we keep the MMP Licensing” simple and easy to control.
For Starters instead of going after end users (which at this time is important to do) I would first hire engineers to redesign the Patents to extend the life time.
Re-patented patents will enable TPL to go after the J3 ARMHY.
The fact that PTSC is putting pressure on “End Users” that will in turn put pressure on the Chip Manufacturers to settle with PTSC.
Of course its NOT in our best interest to settle with the Chip manufacturers because we would then be settling for peanuts and thanks to Quantas we have to pursue the end user.
However I would consider licensing the Chip Manufacturers, but they would have to agree to the following:
1. Yearly Renewals
2. A List of their current customers
3. A list of their customers products and future products they intend to roll out
4. Notice of New Customers and their current and future products that they intend to roll out.
Then I would “Custom Design” license program for each manufacturer tailored and based on their customers.
This would keep the same type of existing revenues but corned to the Designers of the Systems, and Manufacturers of chips and technological products.
IF this is done correctly then TPL may not need an army of attorneys in the Americas, Europe or Asia.
The way this stands now…When not if, the Injunctions are allowed, many companies sitting on the sidelines are going to sense the danger of injunctions on their products as well and will want to get in on the license program.
Does TPL have the attorneys in place to start signing all those contracts?
If not they need to or make a plan in case the Chip and Systems designers agree to the above.
Corrections welcome.
