First, regarding whether Judge Ward may be inclined to grant an injunction as requested. It seems to me that, without knowledge of this action by this third party organization, he would have no reason to be so inclined. However, if he were privy to the (highly suspect) third party petition for re-examination by the USPTO and more so the "attack article" by the same group, he may be much more inclined to issue the injunction. I conclude this in that these actions by the (again, suspect) third party are "messin' with his case". But by what means would the Judge become privy? Would/could the counsel (T&T) pass this ancillary information along to further prompt the Judge's attention/action? Would the USPTO advise the court? It just seems that without this "background" info, there is no real compelling reason for the Judge to act on our request. However, all must recognize that if the Judge were to act in our favor, a settlement would probably be much more likely, and almost immediate IMO. How would the Judge feel about THAT prospect? And PLEASE, nobody here try to solicit the Judge's attention to the added info element - leave to the appropriate people.

Second, I'd like everyone to again take note as to what happened Friday. We moved up through quite a bit of resistance by some 20%, pulled back (possibly short sellers stepping in, having noticed the sudden rise and volume), then the news bomb was dropped at 11:06 here on Agora (and undoubtedly on every other PTSC board), and we plumetted. The news wasn't "new", it was a day old. The post was new, and there was an immediate reaction. Look at a one-day chart, and look at the time when the real plumet commenced. Though I (like most) always felt that posts here or anywhere never had THAT much influence (some influence, but not to this degree), this was a real eye-opener for me. Never again discount the possible impact of posts on the boards. Please post responsibly.

JMHOs,

SGE