"we are parting ways with both the Hoffman and Hawk Associates agencies effective July 31, 2008"

Good Bye and good ridence.

Like the overall tone of the letter very much, doesnt sound like a company that plans on going under anytime soon!

Civil Code sec 1542 allows the parties to "revisit" their agreements when something unexpected occurs subsequent to the contract which materially affects the terms. However, most sophisticated contracts, partiuclarly in areas as complex as this, contain a waiver or release of 1542 protections which means both sides agree that no matter what happens subsequent to the contract, they each are assuming that risk and the contract can not be set aside. I do not know for sure if this is in these contracts but I am asssuming it is.

Obviously we can still go after original manufacturers. We have already settled with Intel, Toshiba, NEC and Philips, but there are many big boys left and the price of poker just went up. I would not say it is good news but it difinately streamlines our litigation and allows us to focus on a smaller pool of infringers, for more money.

Here is my latest effort to get information through Hawk. Im done with them:

Me:

Can the company at least confirm that they (TPL) are currently negotiating with companies regarding licensing our patents (whether or not such negotiations result in a settlement remains to be seen) as opposed to, licensing activity being on hold right now for some reason.

Ken:

There is no reason for the business to be "on hold." The pursuit of licensees continues.

Me:

Thank you for the response, but "the pursuit of licensees" is not necessarily the same as being in current negotiations. Being in current negotiations requires some positive response or at least some expressed interest from the potentially infringing company, whereas "the pursuit of licensees" could simply mean we are asking but no one is answering. Can you clarify if the distinction I have just made was what you intended or if there are currently negotiations taking place.

Ken:

Please do not over analyze our responses. The terms "pursue" and "negotiate" can be used interchangeably. However, on a broader issue please refrain from asking questions that request the potential disclosure of material non-public information. If there were a material change in the licensing activity it could not be disclosed selectively to you by responding to your e-mail inquiry.

Me:

Respectfully, the information flowing from the company is so sparse and vague that we shareholders have little choice but to analyze what crumbs we do get to pull out any and all information we can. Furthermore, I fail to see how asking a very general simple question about whether the company is negotiating with anybody, without asking for names, industries, amounts, terms, or if there have been any actual settlements, requires the disclosure of non public material information. Again, I did not ask if the company had reached any settlements, I just wanted to know if negotiations were taking place which may or may not ever result in a settlement. Finally, if you or the company does not want to answer my questions or believes it would be inappropriate then dont answer, but I do not need to be chastised by you for asking the question, particularly since I dont agree with you that it does require the disclosure of material information, and given how much we shareholders are being kept in the dark and given how much money we all are loosing on a daily basis with this stock. So apparently I am not going to get an answer to my original question because as far as I am concerned "pursue" and "negotiate" are not synonymous and apparently the company has no interest in increasing the level of transparency for the shareholders and does not care how low the sp goes. Thanks anyway, I (probably) wont be bothering you again.

I guess you guys will let me know if I overreacted or underreacted to Kens responses.

IMO the USPTO validation is just one of many hurdles we have to cross to get some real movement in the SP and is not a turning point in and of itself. As I understand it, the best thing that will come of the USPTO review is nothing - our patents will not be invalidated, and I think that is already the expectation. Further IMO based on my previously posted communication with Hawk, there are not settlements lined up waiting for USPTO validation so I do not think there is any reason to expect a ground swell of sp activity in anticipation of USPTO validation. It is still my hope that such validation will be a positive step towards more licensing deals but who knows how much time that will take so no reason to expect immediate movement in sp. IMO. Still waiting and wondering.

To those making personal attacks: You are loosing site of the forrest through the trees. We do not benefit from silencing people, even ones you disagree with. Even posters I disagree with most of the time, do offer an intelligent perspective or usefull information on occaision, or at least ignite discussion which gets same. If someone makes a comment you dispute or dont agree with, respond and point out why you think their post is incorrect. If others agree with your perspective, it will have a much greater impact then just resulting to insulting comments about the original poster.

To those getting personally attacked: Toughen up. Saying "Im taking my ball and going home" doesnt benefit anyone, including you. If you dont post your thoughts or information anymore, you dont get to hear others perspectives. Either ignore the insults or defend yourself.

This forum still has value if we all share our ideas and perspective. The more the better. There is bound to be some head butting and bickering with this type of forum but we dont need to dwell on it. IMO

Can somebody tell RG to release some positive news, anything at all to stop the bleeding. How about something as simple as

"although we do not have any new licenses to announce at this time, I can confirm that we are actively pursuing infringers and are currently in negotiations that we are hopefull will reach resolution soon."

Or

"Given the complexities and amount of time it takes to calculate the potential damages and negotiate with each company there will be lulls in the licensing activity while this process plays out and that is what we are currently experiencing which should not be construed as a reflection of a loss of strength in the MMP."

No activity + No PR + Confidentiality + No meaningful communication from management = destruction of sp. Even giving management every benefit of doubt, I still believe there is more they could be telling us and should be telling us.