Of course I have equity positions in other (non-competing, non-related) companies. But PTSC is the only substantial OTC/BB holding. My main strategy is not OTC/BB stocks but "blue chips" and larger growth companies.

Looks like you also recognize the potential of PTSC.

Compared to other investments, say big board conglomerates or NASDAQ giants, there is relatively little news or transparency with PTSC.

We know now from the recent PR that many conpanies broke off negotiations and were awaiting the outcome of the USPTO re-exams. Do you think that this fact had anything to do with the gap of time with very little news reported? That is there wasn't much news to report during this timeframe? As far as transparency imo PTSC has provided transparency when there has been somthing to show us. PTSC did not know what the USPTO process would leave them. Were the patents going to be strengthened, weakened or even rejected, they did not know. So what transparency or news did you think they should have been reporting during this timeframe?

So I can't regularly sit down with 10 pages of news and data with PTSC like one can do with say, UTX or CBI (and believe me I do). So for PTSC I sometimes stop by Agora. There are good nuggets here occasionally. And often there is plain bad information or dangerous speculation. While I can't always provide new insights on new developments (because they are often few and far between) I feel I can still contribute by refuting the bad and dangerous.

And just what makes you so special that you know what is bad information and dangerous? All big companies grow out of little companies. I used to work at a fortune 500 company that started as a side business in a garage. They have to come from somwhere. Why is it such a stretch to believe that PTSC can't be one of those companies some day? You said this is the only OTC/BB company you have a substantial holding in so obviously even you see potential. Just because someone else may see more potential than you does not make their beliefs wrong because you may be the one that's wrong and they may be right. Time will tell.

Groener and his penny ante acquisitions? His PDSG pie chart? Does anyone really believe that PDSG has more potential for the next 10 years than the MMP?

This pie chart was made prior to the revalidation of the 336 by the USPTO. licensing had stalled and the license fees came down as a result. RG's pie chart imo was based on what he had to work with at that time. If the 336 patent had been rejected by the USPTO, would this pie chart be probable? Now that the 336 has been revalidated and PTSC can now put a value on the MMP, I believe we will see a new pie chart in the near future which shows a large increase in revenue as compared to PDSG.

On this I will admit I'm not sure nor do I have the legal or EE expertise to judge. The fact that they haven't been granted a decisive victory to date is worrisome but the fact that it has gone on this long indicates more than just smoke and mirrors.

The Markman was in our favor but we know that the reexams hampered TPL's ability to take the J's the distance. Again don't you think the lenth of the reexam process has had somthing to do with how long this has been taking?

However, most worrisome is that it seems that with decreasing licenses and the ho-hum rate of signings (to date) far more qualified agents (corporate legal counsel) aren't convinced.

Perhaps you missed that the 336 patent was recently revalidated and strengthened by the USPTO. This just happened a few weeks ago. Since then they just anounced three more signings in one day and the PR stated that the license fees are going up and some companies are electing to make payments over time due to the increase in license fees. Also that hundreds of companies are reengaging licensing talks. So does your statement above in bold qualify as outdated and bad information? We shall see.

All the best,

Steve