Thank you for clarifying that you meant Johnson's "core interest" was with PDS rather than TPL, as I don't believe that he has any interest in TPL whatsoever.

As to the three individuals driving PTSC in any direction, I would merely observe that from information available they, like shareholders, are awaiting the decisions of others before coming to any conclusions.

Your coin-flip question made me smile in that it brings out the executive vs non-executive BoD roles debate again, but I would point you in the direction of the CEO search, TPL litigation, and CDX test/review, to name but three ways, notwithstanding ensuring full SEC compliance.

Flipping the coin back to you, what do you believe they should be doing differently?

While a message board will give various interpretations of officially filed documents, I humbly suggest that any investment decision should be based on those said documents.

From a pragmatic perspective, my investment was made on the basis of my belief as to the potential value of the patents, and any cost of mistakes made by executive directors in trying to grow PTSC will be but a small fraction of that potential should the currently received license fees approximate 10% of alleged infringement.

It is that potential (greed) that brought me here, that potential (greed) that keeps me here, and the lethargic fulfillment of that potential (greed) that has many complaining because the "quick buck" profit didn't arrive as they expected.

.

.

.

Be well