...but I woke up with a horrendous headache this morning (nothing to do with PTSC) that I still have, yet I still had to go to work for awhile and then go to "field day" for my younger daughter at her school. Later today, we will leave for the other end of the state for my older daughter's soccer tournament, and we may not be back until Sunday --- so I may "go silent" again for a day or so.

"Tyler" was apparently at the Markman, although seemingly did not identify himself/herself to anyone among the PTSC group. I would invite this person to email me at my Yahoo address for further discussion, but in any event, here's a follow-up.

As to Mr. Cook, everyone here should have known from my original post that I was not overly impressed with his presentation, else I would have said more in a positive sense. Nevertheless, these things happen, even to the best lawyers --- and as I have said before on quite a few occasions, oral argument to a judge, whether good or bad, really adds little to the case anyway, as long as one's written arguments are sound.

Indeed, as I posted some months ago, many judges don't even allow oral argument on various types of motions, even though such may decide the entire case. Argument is allowed at Markman hearings because testimony and other evidence can be presented, but I would think that it rarely influences the actual result. This is the way it should be. Think about it: Why would a lawyer not say something in his written arguments, and wait until being in open court to deliver something of a "blockbuster" nature that the judge has never before seen or heard?

As to Tyler's other statements, I don't have exactly the same recollection of the Judge's questioning of Mr. Cook or the other attorneys, but at this point, I don't think engaging in a protracted discussion of "who heard what" is going to do anyone any good. However, here are just a few comments in this regard.

I can tell you without doubt, as in my prior report on the Markman, that the Judge asked questions about "varying together" mainly to the defendants, and it was clear that he was highly unlikely to accept their definition. He would have liked to get more specificity from Mr. Cook as to what definition the plaintiffs would prefer, but Mr. Cook simply stated that he was unable to provide such "at this time". That leads me to believe that Mr. Cook may attempt to submit a supplemental memorandum after he has had a chance to give the issue further thought, but as always, we shall see. The same is true for the "total top area" question, which Mr. Cook was unable to further explain to the Judge's satisfaction in the courtroom.

As to "processing frequency", the Judge appeared to me to be highly critical of the defendants' position. My notes specifically reflect that he told the defense attorney who was arguing the point that the defendant's defintion "isn't helpful", "doesn't solve the problem", and in general, that their suggested interpretation simply created more undefined terms.

In general, my feeling was that the Judge asked questions of both sides that remain unanswered at this time --- again, I saw no favoritism one way or the other. But whatever the case, with the possible exception of supplemental briefs as mentioned above, I would simply say that, regardless of how one feels about the plaintiffs' versus defendants' presentations at the Markman, what's done is done.

Did anyone here really think that the defendants were coming to Marshall only to kneel before Cook and Leckrone with an open checkbook in hand? I have told you time and time again that the Markman would likely be held, simply because merely taking part in the hearing, in and of itself, presented no risk. And I have further told you that, if there is to be a settlement, the greater likelihood is for such to occur between the time of the hearing and the ruling --- I have no idea whether such will now occur or not, but it is undeniable that, regardless of how any of us onlookers felt about the hearing, the attorneys themselves have a much better idea of where they stand and are advising their clients accordingly.

In closing, I have not sold a single share due to what occurred at the Markman. I don't know whether Mr. Swartz has continued to convert/sell or not, but it would seem odd to me that he would come all the way from Atlanta to Marshall if he wanted our stock price to do badly. Finally, among some other shareholders who attended, I am not aware of any sentiments among them that they intended to rush out and sell. None of the above is intended to be investment advice about whether to buy or sell PTSC, i.e., it is simply an indication that those of us who attended the hearing saw no reason to panic.

Now, do yourselves a favor and let it be. Good luck to all.