I understood that Felcyn's comment about the "dividend-paying machine" was conditional: If we see no progress or evidence of success at approaching 120 days, we will most likely sell PDSG

If all we get left with is the MMP, we will cut overhead by 80%, reduce the number of board members to a bare minimum and enlist a strategy of stock buyback's and dividends

So easy to overlook when making a point, I suppose?

or you can tell us from any other authoritative source, that Holocom and PDSG will definitely be "show[ing] profitability" in such amounts that, in the near term, will cause a dramatic increase in the share price

vs

I didn't say it could be done overnight, I'm simply saying that it needs to be started.

Why is it that the proposed, yet unnamed BoD which has all the answers for increasing shareholder value is not able to give the same dramatic increase expected of the incumbent BoD?

which is, IMO, largely if not solely why there is no interest in PTSC at the current time.

We will have to disagree on this one as I see the lack of interest based on a complete lack of predictable revenue on which to make an investment decision. This might change in the event that Holocom and PDSG are both showing, in the words of Felcyn, "evidence of success", which incidentally, I use as my "authorative source" for the simple reason that overhead has not been cut by 80%.

I am at a loss as to why there has been no licensing in Germany, where the obligation falls on the user to ensure that they are not in infringement of an existing patent.

.

.

.

Be well