I've been giving this some thought..... (always a scary proposition!). I've decided to share it here to see whether anyone thinks it might have merit (probably a long shot - are these enough warnings to take what I simply ask with a grain of salt?!)

Is it possible that the "project" referred to in the filing re: the newest Agreement has something to do with ARM?

Was this ARM acquisition a catalyst for this agreement?

From the Agreement filing:

"Pursuant to the Agreement, MMP Licensing LLC will provide commercialization services to PDS for commercialization of the Moore Microprocessor Patent portfolio (the "MMP Portfolio") with respect to certain companies (the "Project"). PDS also granted a license to MMP Licensing LLC for the commercialization of the MMP Portfolio."

While I have absolutely no idea of the specific terms of the ARM/SoftBank acquisition agreement, particularly with regard to "outstanding liabilities", I do know that it is commonplace that, in such deals, the Seller (ARM) must eliminate all outstanding portential liabilities (i.e., "unquantified Risk"). The Buyer wants to know exactly what he/she's actually buying, after all, and certainly does not want to acquire "unquantified Risk".

More in direct response to your original email, where you ask "Wouldn't it have been nice to have an active claim against ARM to be settled .......", I would think that ARM must have been legally notified of infringement of the MMP long ago. Of course, like some 80-85% of the population of infringers notified, ARM just ignored us (probably hoping we'd just go away). And if the Notification isn't good enough, assuming there was one, then we could file suit to get their (and SoftBank's) attention.

If there is any merit to my thought of how ARM may now have great incentive to settle/license to remove this minor (in the scheme of things, considering the money involved) hurdle, this may be the "Project" that MMP LLC is engaged in. We may actually have some leverage here. Maybe....

FWIW,

SGE

While I hope this new agreement holds water and is actually acted upon, when having experienced what we've experienced in the past in "agreements" with the Leckrones, I can't get too excited just yet.

Looking at the situation from the "Leckrone perspective", it could easily be that they just hit the "repeat" button. Arbitration had already been postponed twice (that we know of) - from January '16 to May, then from May to September. There was probably no way the Leckrones could cause or enable a further postponement. The ongoing tactic has been to delay, delay, delay. What has worked in the past could work again! So sign another "agreement", and then do nothing towards fulfilling that agreement.

This is another case where I wonder whether it would have been more beneficial just to allow arbitration to happen, and perhaps better resolve things for good. But we don't know all the details/influencing factors in play that caused PTSC/PDS to opt to trust Leckrones to live up to their words, again.

I suspect that PTSC has the same concern and won't announce this agreement until the Leckrones come through by doing at least some of what they've agreed (e.g., delivery of data to DH). When a PR comes out announcing this agreement AND stating that use-able data has been delivered to DH (at minimum), then I'll get excited. Meanwhile, watch and wonder....

FWIW,

SGE

The word I recall Robert using way-back-when was "ubiquitous".

FWIW,

SGE

I have no idea whether the company may announce anything, but I would certainly think that the "relief" of the IPR burden/risk would be worthy of announcement as soon as it's in concrete at the PTO.

FWIW,

SGE

How would you know, you weren't even invited! LOL

Stan was, and I was; I showed up, Stan opted out.

SGE

I've decided not to waste my time. Everyone that I really care to have know already does, in detail, so there is no real point to the exercise. You are not worth the effort....

At this point, does it matter? Only in retrospect, because if you, or far more profoundly IMO, Stan had accepted the opportunity that was so obviously being presented, many things may be different now. Think of the timing of the incident that I'm intimately aware of (6/6/12, if I recall the year correctly - the day was easy to remember, D-Day - but there have been sooo many years! It was shortly after the Apple deal). There could have been two newly appointed BoD members/shareholders at a critical time who potentially could have altered the vote/decision-making for the benefit of PTSC and all shareholders (and to the detriment of Dan Leckrone). But no...... And here we are. That basically sums it up....

FWIW,

SGE