Is it just me or doesn't anyone find it peculiar that prior to the August 2004 SEC filing, there didn't appear to be any mention or concern about the possibility of a co-OWNER someday appearing.

In earlier filings there was something mentioned about the possibility of the patents being invalidated one day but never a word about a co-owner.

There was a report filed in April of 2004 which never mentioned the Feb 2004 filing of a lawsuit against Moore and TPL for ownership. In August 2004 it suddently appears under litigation that in Feb 2004 we filed this lawsuit.

Why wasn't it a material event worthy of an 8K and why wasn't in the April filing? Is it possible that a sharp business man like Swartz with Johnson looking out for him would have invested in PTSC without having fully investigated any potential ownership conflicts? Wasn't this technology acquired when Nanotronics was acquired? Did Nanotronics have any idea of the potential conflict and if so did they disclose it to PTSC?

Is it possible that Swartz could have instructed the BoD/Johnson to file suit to protect his interests when they figured out that Moore really was a co-owner. The settlement and subsequent master agreement seems to have benefitted mostly TPL and Swartz. This is especially true for Swartz in light of re-pricing and dividends that shortly followed the MA. Would this make Swartz a shadow director, the ultimate puppet master pulling the strings.

Again if I am missing something in the filings or am completely off base, corrections are always welcome.