Fair enough. Nobody here KNOWS whether there were more licensees for non-MMP.

But IMO, that is rather counter-intuitive. Leckrone made no effort to hide the announcement of seven instances where comingling may have been possible, but you suggest he did hide others, Why some and not all? This while trying to market licenses for non-MMP, touting those non-MMP patents as valid and infringed by many. More recognized infringers/licensees = greater demand (or logically should).

Thus, your suggestion makes no sense to me. I strongly suspect that every single non-MMP license sold has been announced (except those embroiled in litigation, i.e., Apple).

My point with BUSHleague's post stands. And you continue to reinforce the attempt at deceipt with implications that he is correct, with nothing - not even common sense - to back it up.

Would Leckrone lie? No doubt. Would he hide something which would inherently enhance the sale of something where he is primary owner and beneficiary, IMO not very likely unless done consistently.

SGE