I suppose your post was directed at me, as well as others.  First, I don't get offended by some of your posts, only frustrated.  Some of us respond with our view of things, and you consider it an attack.  Perhaps it is you that gets offended....

And to again respond to your thoughts re: additional revenue streams.....  Do you think creating an alternate revenue stream can happen over night?  Get real.  The only way they could do that is to make investments with the money they've got to generate interest income.  Oh yeah, they did that.  Other ways?  Maybe buy out a company and/or act as a venture capitalist in a revenue-generating enterprise with limited exposure/risk and minimal outlay.  Oh yeah, they did that too.  What else?  Maybe continue to tap the virtual bottomless pit of infringers for more licensing fees/royalties.  They're, or their partner, is doing that too.  Other methods?  And remember, it has to be immediate; we can't wait years for it to happen.  Has the company stated intent to pursue such things? By golly, they have - longer term things (I/I, Wireless charger, other?).

Understand the frustration?  And to go a bit further re: PTSC's first action - interest income generator.  IF PTSC could muster say $50M and made a pure, safe interest bearing investment at 10%, that'd get 'em $5M a year.  How much would it cost the develop an alternate revenue enterprise that would bring $5M in pre-tax profit per year? How much risk would be borne by such action? Heck, they could buy US Treasury bills and get near 5%, with no risk at all (unless the country goes bankrupt, but if that happened, we'd all have bigger things to worry about).

So when you suggest such things, with an apparent expectation that something could be done, that isn't/wasn't already done, that would produce alternative revenue immediately/in the very near term, you have many of us scratching our heads.  While I would agree that issuing divys isn't the wisest use of the money IMO, I sure wouldn't want to see them take that ($50M) and buy out something that would generate a mere couple $M in profit/year, while introducing unnecessary risk. And IMO risk level is the determining factor in any investment, and is why I believe we languish (litigation ongoing).

But positive results in litigation will hopefully eliminate a great deal of perceived risk, and success there should also allow a PR campaign to advertise the elimination of risk and prospects for a fairly reliable revenue generator - more licensees at a premium.

Now, please note that this is not an attack or an accusation of FUD.  It is my point of view (and an expression of frustration, as I and others have gone through all this before). If you want to discuss it, be my guest, please.

SGE