http://agoracom.com/ir/patriot/forums/discussion/topics/589061-why-tpl-and-alliasence-need-to-be-removed-from-control-of-mmp-licensing/messages/1848435#message
in part, more at the link from 2013
..... My point to recounting some of those aspects of the trial, and those that would likely be illuminated again at every trial we're a party to, is that reputation and character mean a great deal, and garner you either considerable good will or guarded suspicion; especially in an industry where you want co-operative compliance and cannot afford in time or money or professional resources, to litigate every 1, 2, 3, or 4 million dollar license. Reputation and Character also carry a great deal of weight in front of a Jury too. Unfortunately, I think that it is here in our damages award of 1/10th of what we were demanding, where we see that the weight of those two elements manifested themselves in the Jury's award.
.
IMO .. We have genuine issues with how to overcome our history of grand infringment exposure representations, but a record of voluntarily accepting relatively low licensing fees and Royalty rates. Not only do I think removing TPL and Alliasence from MMP licensing decisionmaking will bring renewed credibility and co-operation to the Licensing program, and result in more and swifter Licensing closures, but I also think it will provide PDS with a strategic and legitimate argument to raise our Royalty rates, especially in court, where "reasonableness" of the rates will certainly be argued and pivotal in large damages cases.
.
By publicly switching operational control away from TPL and Alliasence, PDS can strongly make the case for higher rates by exploiting the very licensing history and facts which appear to hinder us now. The MMP licensing program has been operating under the backdrop of a licensing partner who was under financial distress and who's license signings appear to reflect that pressured situation. The evidence to support our contention includes those Multi-Portfolio license discounts, our own lawsuit for Fraud surrounding the Apple deal, Brown's $10 Million Judgement, Moore's litigation against TPL, TPL's own BK status, and who knows what else went into, or might still come out to influence the mix. The business benefit, relationship, and control of Alliasence and TPL appear so close, that it seems they are really only different in corporate name alone. All of these occurrances, observations and historys demonstrate to me a reasonable and justifiable argument of why License fees were artifically low, and that the financial distress of TPL as our licensing partner impacted and influenced the deals and licenses TPL engaged in at the expense of higher and more appropriately reasonable MMP Royalty fees. and on and on and on. *Afterall, a somewhat similiar but more narrowly applied argument was made by TPL themselves in explaining away the Apple license......
