I have already answered your question as to motive.

Unlike those who see clearly with 20 20 hindsight, I prefer to look at the actions/inactions at the time of the event, something I trust the USPTO is doing with the re-examinations.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to go back to when PTSC was losing money quarter-on-quarter with no reliable prospect of revenue, and let me know what you would have done in similar circumstances to ensure continued survival.

Now do the same with each subsequent significant event. What would you have done differently at that specific time, only using the then available information/circumstances.

For example, was it a good investment to cybersquat over 500 domain names? Was it still a good investment after the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)? (No comment required as to the integrity of such investment).

What most beraters are doing is not only suggesting that the ACPA should have been anticipated, but using it to answer the fist question in the example.

That you don't find this methodolgy questionable somewhat surprises me.

.

.

.

Be well