First, yes I can. Everything, as we (except you perhaps) all KNOW, revolves around the patents. Right now, that means the PTO. I again suggest that virtually every other "issue" will evaporate once PTO hurdles are overcome. And by all rights, based on the 3/2/10 Henneman input, those hurdles ARE overcome with the remaining, seemingly minor hurdle of getting the PTO to act on the '336.

But I'll go ahead and respond to your items of interest:

"1. We've made additional loans to TPL. (and you can bet potential infringers will use TPL's desperation to their advantage perhaps by simply drawing things out & I have little doubt licensing activities are tied to this somehow)"

This is "interesting" - those loans, especially in light of the Commercialization Agreement (see my debate with LL). Here I'll go off on a tangent of a minute....

There must be a pretty serious chess game in play between PTSC and TPL that would justify the loan approach over the "take a greater percentage of ownership" approach. Or perhaps not....in fact PROBABLY NOT. You would have to admit that PTSC is being very cooperative with its business partner by going the "loan route". The action does not appear adversarial at all, but (again) very cooperative.

Now, back to your parenthetical.... "TPL desperation"? Does getting a temporary loan from your business partner, with good terms, sound like "desperation"? I mean really.... If they had gone to Vito's Bank of Sicily (no offense to our Sicilian friends) or another "questionable" source with terms including potential injury to life and limb, it could then be characterized as "desperate". Here I don't think that characterization applies.

And with a positive PTO result, will this issue likely persist?

"2. We're now in a dispute w/ TPL"

The word "dispute" is IMO very prone to exageration in its meaning. It's like the word "argument". It can imply a certain "nastiness" that simply doesn't exist. The dispute appears to simply involve the need to reconcile certain accounting, involving relatively small dollars (well under a million). And consider what I've suggested above - cooperative loans. Does it sound like this "dispute" is of great significance in the overall scheme of things?

"3. As a result of the TPL dispute, PTSC may be in violation of the Master Agmt by not meeting the funding mandates set forth in the Agmt."

IMO, that's a real stretch. Which party to the agreement is having difficulty meeting funding needs? I'm not sure where your conclusion is coming from, as I don't see it in the PR or in the financials. It appears it falls from someone's interpetation of the word "dispute". I suggest that if there is an acknowledged "dispute" actively being worked out, we're far from being in "violation". If it is mutually determined that PTSC actually owes some more money when the dispute is resolved, then we'll likely pay it. End of story.

"4. Licensing activities have been impaired (and I think that's giving the situation the benefit of the doubt). I believe there was a reference to "resumption of licensing activities" which to me implies that their pursuits have been halted but at the very least impaired."

While I understand the concern and also suspect that licensing activities are "impaired", IMO they are far more impaired by lack of PTO action than by any funding shortfall. But here again, there is no statement in the PR or Financials that licensing is necessarily "impaired" - this is your word. And it revolves around the word "resumption". But you have to read that whole sentence "....resumption of productive license activity.....". So perhaps license activity has become more difficult - no big surprise IMO. Again, think PTO. I would think that at this moment in time, it would be more difficult (less productive), especially if we are demanding higher licensing fees.

Also, contrast these words against the words in the filing, which were:

"Additionally, we have loaned TPL $1,950,000 intended to cover operating costs including the furtherance of licensing our MMP Portfolio of microprocessor patents."

And your last item:

"5. PTSC liquidity is an even greater issue."

Agreed. As long as PTSC is burdenned with making our contribution to PDS/Alliacense AND (essentially) TPL's, this is an issue.

And with a positive PTO result, will this issue likely persist?

Now, I will not get into a "tit for tat" with you on any of this (unless you choose to agree, or just acknowledge, all points). That is unless you can point to quotes from the Financials that I missed.

You have voiced your opinion's, and I have voiced mine.

They are both visible to all. They have been communicated.

IMO, a debate with you would not be "productive", as I can't recall it ever being so in the past.

JMHOs and TIA,

SGE