(start from bottom and read up)

GLTAL

yaz

xxxx,

I'll refer you to Mr. Goerner's most recent shareholder's letter which stated "While all licensees to date have chosen lump sum front-end buy-outs, TPL continues to offer an on-going royalty payment option in new customer agreements and future license agreements could include on-going royalties."

http://patriotscientific.com/index.p...

Also the terms "grant" and "purchase" have been used interchangeably to refer to the same licensing concept.

Regards,
Ken AuYeung, Hawk Associates Inc.


From:
Sent: Thu 5/15/2008 2:31 PM
To: Investor Relations
Subject: Re: Question


Ken,
Thanks for your response.
All 40 plus companies to date have either purchased or been granted use of the MMP. Are there other options for companies besides paying X amount for a licensee?? For example, we have seen the word GRANT versus PURCHASE. Might "granting use of the MMP" mean that PTSC has negotiated something other than a lump sum payment????
Thanks,
xxxxx
On May 15, 2008, at 11:06 AM, Investor Relations wrote:

xxxxx,

Forwarding your email to the management team.

What do you mean by unconventional agreements?

Regards,
Ken AuYeung, Hawk Associates Inc.

From:
Sent: Thu 5/15/2008 1:06 PM
To: Investor Relations; PTSC: Investor Relations
Subject: Question

Ken,
Many shareholders continue to hold out hope that more revenues from the J3 are forthcoming. Just today your email to a PTSC shareholder laid to rest the theory that revenues are NOT contingent on the re-exam by the USPTO:

"Are any company's payments for granted or purchased MMP licenses to date contingent on the USPTO re-examination results?"

Answer from PTSC;

"There have not been any such contingencies."

Can you forward the following question to RG: Are some unconventional agreements being made that can't be discussed?

Regards,

xxxxxx
Shareholder