There are currently 66 companies who have licensed the MMP. I'd venture to estimate there are easily an average of 5 people per company that are more qualified than our current slate of BOD members based on PTSC's business focus, from which we could choose. That's 330 candidates from which the current BOD and Management can begin their selection process.

Obviously, as NON-EXECUTIVE directors, as you enjoy reminding us so often, these new candidate's work load as PTSC directors would be fairly light and their time committment fairly limited, so I think we can assume a compensation level similar to other similar companies. Heck, let's choose Rambus as an example. Their TOP earning director made $65K compared to our stingy $144K paid to CJ.

But really, that's just a single example. I think it's realistic and market justifiable for a company at the stage PTSC is at, for there to be a modest Director's fee, in the thousands to tens of thousands (less than $40K) plus stock options. It doesn't seem to be rocket science that needs more than typical comparative logic applied to determine the proper answers. And it takes no time to look at PTSC, its situation, to determine that our board (at least the majority of members) is over compensated and severely so.

Additionally, at some point, as such a staunch apologist for the current BOD as you are, I hope you will respond with a post that enumerates the many qualities that support the continued presence and high compensation levels that our BOD enjoys. So far, a pulse and breathing have been made clear, so you can skip those. Also, attending meetings, and making decisions, while you haven't specifically mentioned those, will be agreed as stipulated. Really though, what sets these people apart as DESIREABLE in your veiw, to be members of the Board of Directors of PTSC, and especially over others? Thanks for your anticipated multiple responses owing.