I am glad to be speaking with an informed person re the Law. Your Doctorate credentials trump mine in that regard but please note I originally yielded to you in my opening statement concerning our BoD legal compliance when I said:

“They may be FULLY COMPLIANT. That is not my issue. It is not that they may be compliant as much as it is that they are not operating as fully in the shareholders interests as I would expect (or demand).”

You continue to say “Wanting more information is not the same as there being a legal obligation to provide it.” Once again, we agree.

The discussion I am trying to frame is based on my view that the BOD has wide latitude / responsibility in determining for themselves what information is material (and must be published) or nonmaterial (and can be subject to NDA with out SEC conflict). They have chosen to accept the most restricted view of materiality as opposed to the SEC desire for the most disclosure practical. Should they choose to classify PTSC information as material, then they are free, in fact obligated IMHO, to publish it and they cannot be stopped. The latitude is there if they chose. The fact they do not take this path indicates to me that they have overriding loyalties to others, as their actions have consistently proven detrimental to the shareholders and our share price.

As to the following paragraphs where it is said that I “imply that there have been material changes regarding the patent portfolio…”, I do no such thing. Ditto for the next paragraph on earnings.

I do, however, find the rest of your post more to my point and I would appreciate your view on my next comment.

I do, as you, consider a NDA a binding document, if not in conflict with a higher order of law. I do not however believe, as you appear to believe, that this documents overrides all other established law, including SEC regulations relating to disclose of material information. I believe the NDA argument is a false premise, a straw man if you will, which serves as a distraction from two questions:

1) what latitude does the SEC give the BoD in determining what information is material?

2) Is material information subject to the NDA over the SEC regs requiring disclosure?

If the answer to 1 is “great latitude” and the answer to 2 is “SEC trumps all” then the BoD has some explaining to do.

So, what can we discuss relative to points 1 & 2?

And who has a response to my query as to our ability (inability) to vote off a sitting BoD?