It appears to be the general consensus that business resolution = settlement.  I believe that to be true.  The meat and potatoes of that business resolution, which is cloaked by a Non disclosure agreement, is what has most of us puzzled.

Some find it plausible that the settlement could be structured for partial payments based on the outcome of the USPTO re-exam, I am one of those people.  Others find this to be absurd.  Here is one possible scenario as to what happened, all conjecture and all IMHO.

!. Mediator tells JW we really have this wrapped up now, just need a few more days.

2. Js agree, to pay a substantial amount for past infringement rather than face a jury.

3. They, however, are concerned about the outcome of the re-exams and offer in good faith to release the majority of funds in ’08 (thus making it a material event in ’08- no 8K needed now). If and when the patents are upheld, the court will order the release of the final amount for past infringement.  All parties agree.

4.  Now there is the matter of continued use of the MMP portfolio going forward.  They are granted the rights to use, for unknown consideration.  They do not purchase a license as has been the usually and customary wording for recent PRs.  They still have to sign a license agreement which would then make sense that they are part of the recent PR about ten new licensees over the past month.  Perhaps in this case, granted the rights = purchased a license agreement.  I don’t know.

5. Additionally, perhaps (this is a big stretch) one of them offers a sweet deal to PTSC in lieu of PTSC’s half of some part of the consideration.  Let’s say something along the lines of M&A, that may help to put PTSC on the NASDAQ.  This will take some time to put together, so a non disclosure agreement is really critical here. This would also be a material event that hasn’t happened yet.

Again, this is my scenario and not intended to mislead anyone new to the board who may be reading this.

For those who say they bought into this stock for the patents and not for M &As, I think it is safe to say that we all bought for the patents.  My husband and I have been holding for only a year now.  Others here have said that they have been holding for 8 or more years.  You have seen a good part of the MMP life pass before your eyes.  This company must be forward thinking and start producing a product or service that will sustain it long after the patents have expired. I believe that Mr. Turley is qualified to investigate and negotiate that kind of a deal for this company.  Whether or not he is capable of running that kind of a company, I am not qualified to answer.  He has the confidence of many of us in that he is qualified to run the type of company that PTSC is today. 

Laurie