We all know that, as a consequence of the commercialization agreement, RG can not discuss MMP licensing or reexams w/o TPL's OK. So RG will always politely sidestep the issue and talk in very general terms. Recall how he talked about MMP in last letter.

<Beginning in 2007, a series of reexaminations was initiated against four key patents in the MMP™ Portfolio (the ‘148, ‘336, ‘584 and ‘749). As we have stated previously, this is a time-consuming, detailed process that can take several years. No one can forecast the progress, or the eventual outcome, of the re-examination processes, but we remain optimistic for a variety of reasons, including those outlined in Dr. Choate’s paper with a link, included in my June 16, 2008 letter to the shareholders, which can be found on Patriot’s website.

We regret to see the amount of speculation that goes back and forth among many of our shareholders regarding the uncertainties of this process. Further, I am certain that attempts at direct communications by any of you with anyone at the USPTO office will only serve to create confusion and potentially even delay the examinations. It is our opinion that any comment by us prior to a final completion of any of the examinations will only serve to confuse the process. As soon as anything is definitive, I assure you we will communicate that to our shareholders in a timely fashion.

We remain confident that the USPTO will re-affirm the strength of the MMP™ Portfolio whenever its final actions are determined and made public. >

RG could have referred to prior communications on the subject, or just repeated what he previously said as the background for why he would not take questions during the webcast. He did not have to include those provocative phrases that he did.

<“Relative to the MMP™ Portfolio, both Patriot and The TPL Group are in agreement that it would be premature and speculative to discuss the many opportunities and activities which are underway with respect to the MMP™ Portfolio. As a consequence, we have not made any recent public announcements regarding these activities and cannot discuss them in next Tuesday's Webcast.” >

Regardless of the extent to which you trust or distrust RG, why would he say the above if there is no need to? He could have easily side stepped the issue, as he has done in the past. Since I am in the camp that believes RG would not go out of his way to intentionally mislead shareholders, I must assume that there really is opportunities and activities taking place that we know nothing about. I also assume that TPL approved the wording of the pr. Very interesting indeed!

Happy Easter to all. Opty