In responce to your "Stockholm syndrome" post.

The reality of the situation is that RG was hired by the BOD. RG works for them and as a result he has very little power to get rid of the three BOD members imo. His task is to grow PTSC in a new direction using revenue generated by the MMP. This is what he is in the process of doing. It appears that the BOD support his efforts. At this time perhaps these BOD members actually are contributing with some expertise to the decisions going forward and it may be unfair to judge all of them when there was a time that Swartz may have had more control over PTSC and it's decisions than some members of the BOD did. Pohl appears to have been very close to Swartz and Pohl probably had much influence over the decisions the BOD made during the Swartz years. Obviously the decisions to pay didvidends and to put money into ARS were two poor decisions made. I believe if RG would have been in place earlier these decions would not have been made. I believe he has commented on that fact.

Yes, PTSC's relationship with TPL is concerning in light of Moore's blog, but the reality is that we're in bed with TPL on licensing and I don't believe that RG has much influence over the Leckrones. The licensing agreement was established before RG became CEO. I can imagine that the agreement will be difficult to change at this stage. Perhaps you can voice your concerns to PTSC and reccommend a full audit of expenses for the licensing effort. I'm not privy to how much representation PTSC has at PDS. I know one member sits on a three person panel and I believe you have voiced your concern of this matter to PTSC as the other two members work for TPL and one of those member is supposed to be an impartial member that is not working for PTSC or TPL. I don't know what more can be done than to voice this concern to PTSC until it is corrected. What do you suggest we do?

The BOD and the CEO at PTSC are going to make lots of money that is the reality in corporate America and capitalism. They will enrich themselves. We can watch to see that they earn that money with their decision making. Under RG imo the decisions seem to be reasonable, so I'm willing to wait and see what happens. If I see evidence of poor management, I will be right there to criticise with you. I do recognize that what RG is trying to do is going to take some time to accomplish this is not a quick task imo and until I see the secure data software sales going to other companies I'm going to be patient.

It is obvious to most that the licensing of the MMP is more difficult due to the USPTO reexamination process. Many companies imo are awaiting the outcome before they decide to pay. The SP is in the tank because of this issue and the effect it has had on license fees. The BOD members have no control over the USPTO or over companies that are not purchasing licenses or what they are willing to pay at this point in time. It appears since the MMP was revalidated in Germany that licensing has picked up. So it's difficult to say at this point if it has made companies come forward and what effect it is having on license fees. We should see in the Q. If licensing revenues show an increase imo the SP will respond. Once (if) the USPTO revalidates the 336 and when evidence shows that licenses are going for more money and more frequently as a result, then I think we'll see the SP respond nicely. Factor in that PTSC is no longer a one trick pony with a solid CEO making decisions and aquisitions and you have more investment potential and who knows where the SP could go and the company that PTSC could become. This is the exciting part that is a very real possibility imo at this stage.

So until I see facts that the USPTO has rejected the 336 or that it has lost all of it's power getting approved and PDSG fails to make significant sales of its secure data software then I will be patient and positive in my investment.

All the best,

Steve