I guess I`m in disagreement with about half the board. Many people appear to view a dividend as a way to pay back long term holders and give the company credibility. Dividends do accomplish that end but I believe that much of the credibility problem lies in the fact that PTSC has no product and no recurring revenue. Granted that product licensing stretches well into the future, eventually all infringers will pay something. I see PTSC as analogous to a mine. As the ore is removed (licensing agreements) the intrinsic value of the mine (PTSC value) declines. Eventually the mine is depleted and the land is worthless. I recognize that the analogy is flawed in ways. For example, the price of PTSC shares does not reflect the underlying value of future licenses but we really have no metric by which to value that potential. Now early investors in PTSC will likely recoop their investment through dividends but later investors don`t have much hope of getting back their investment by way of dividends.

At this point neither the announcement of new contracts or the announcement of a dividend do much for share price. The street is saying tell us how much and what you are going to do with the money. I believe if PTSC is going to be around for the long term it must invest the licensing fees in other companies, patients or technologies. Why couldn`t PTSC accept at least partial payment of the companies licensing fee in the infringer`s stock?