A few thoughts on the current negotiations and the potential for licensing:
With regards to the ongoing negotiations, I hope we are taking a two pronged approach - requesting that all parties submitting a proposal for a buyout also submit a proposal for licensing. Thus, allowing us to explore both options simulataniously. Of consequence, is the fact that a party submitting an offer to purchase would have a difficult time in any court of law claiming the patents are worthless or to broad to be inforced (try claiming otherwise to a jury).
With regards to the licensing aspect, many seem to be of the opinion that this would be a long-term process that would require raising capital or further dilution. I see it differently especially if we are taking the approach above. We could possibly come out of the negotiations with seveeral licensees. Each would require an upfront payment to cover past infringements (raise capital) as well as a revenue stream on a go forward basis. I believe this would have a tremendous impact on our current share price and alleviate any shareholder concerns. Also, it would validate the technolgy to the market and induce further licensees to get on board as the price will only increase for later adoptors.
Finally, once the licensor/licensee path is underway, I would use our considerable influence to push forth an agenda of having the technolgy recognized as a standard (i.e. government mandated and paid for through fees and tariffs). Of note, Sawyer has numerous gov't contacts in the US, Candy serves as an advisor to the 3 Group in the EU, and Tucker is one of the 8 key people to know in the telecom sector as listed by The Financial Times.
Personally, I feel this could not only get the short-term value we are all looking for in the stock price, but also have the result of the enormous valuations in the future (25-32 billion).
JMO
