Part secured, part unsecured, which begs the question on what grounds? How was PTSC persuaded to lend approximately half the total on an unsecured basis?

On what grounds would you consider it ACCEPTABLE for PTSC to loan nearly $1M on an unsecured basis?

************************************

Productive licensing had slowed because of the ongoing re-examination requests, and it is difficult to argue that the main cause was the PTSC/TPL dispute. As a consequence of the NIRC and Sirius settlement, has the relationship between the two improved?

I'd suggest you rethink that as the company issued this statement in their 4/9/10 PR:

PTSC's 10-Q also reports that during the February quarter the Company reaffirmed its commitment to the MMP(TM) portfolio of microprocessor patents by providing two loans totaling $1,950,000 to TPL. One of the loans issued currently is in default causing the Company to take a charge to earnings of $1,000,000 plus interest in the event of its non-collection, while at the same time the Company has asserted certain offsets to amounts claimed to be due TPL but are otherwise in dispute. The Company is working aggressively to resolve this issue and to provide for the resumption of productive license activity from the MMP(TM) portfolio.

Clearly, they don't have a problem associating the licensing with the loan issue/dispute. Addtionally, licensing took a hiatis right before PTSC filed suit.

We can only wonder how licensing would be going right now had PTSC/TPL not injected this interpartnership turmoil into the mix. Especially with the NIRC just being issued.

************************************

Was the delay in receiving the second NIRC the reason TPL defaulted on the loans. Was the Sirius settlement conditional on the NIRC? Was the USPTO long overdue on the '336 decision, thereby having a knock-on effect on other obligations?

While we like to think there was a delay in the NIRC, the fact is, the USPTO processed the re-exam within the statistical framework timing.

Based on what we know about TPL, I'd say they defaulted on the FIRST loan (not loans as you say) because PTSC gave them the opportunity to do it. What is the downside to them in reality? They control licensing, they had PTSC's money, and PTSC is totally reliaant on them. Unscrupulous on TPL's part, but hey, who has ever thought them to be choir boys?

************************************

Without knowing why actions were taken it is so easy to focus only on the negative and suggesting a lack of ability on the part of those making the decisions.

While the lack of transparency by the company suggest many things, including a lack of belief in their own abilities, and a desire to keep shareholders ignorant, what supports the negative conclusions is the historical record of failure, not the lack of transparency from the company on these issues.