It's been stated by some here that many of the issues that this BOD has faced are outside of its control. It's an interesting, but hard to substantiate claim.

Let's look at a couple of the different items that have been claimed so by some.

Re-Exam Challenges:

To illustrate, Apple has tied much of its success to the iPhone, iPod, and iPad. However, similar to the arguments presented here, one can argue that the competitors business plans as represented thru products such as the Droid phones, the Zune, and the new competitor to the iPad (can't remember what that's called) are outside of Apple's control and thus one must cut Apple management slack for the market share they lose to these products or the hurdles these products represent to them being able to succeed to their full potential. Or vice versa, one could argue the opposite to that, that criticism of and accountability of manufacturers of the products that compete with Apple's products, should be tempered as it's outwith their control that Apple's business strategy has been so effective. How much complaining do we hear from Apple about these "external" forces. Even if we hear some, why has Apple been so effective in overcoming them?

Isn't it TRUE that our BOD approved a business plan that committted PTSC's fortunes to be tied to the success of the MMP? How then can one claim that they should avoid accountability regarding the markets' resistance and competitive forces against PTSC's business plan, whether through legal challenges, resistance to licensing, or re-exam initiation is "outwith" their control. They embarked on this course. Were they so shortsighted as to assume all they had to do was make an agreement to do so, and checks would just literally start rolling in without resistance or challenge?

Depletion of company treasury:

As I have oft mentioned, PTSC has taken in well over $100M in MMP profits through its ownership interest in the patents and PDS. Yet, it has been argued that it is "outwith" their control the many factors that have led to the depletion of those resources (as opposed to the APPRECIATION of those resources that the BOD of a public company is charged with providing). It was "outwith" their control that warrant holders were provided the same dividends that shareholders were provided. It was "outwith" their control that THREE dividends were issued. It was "outwith" their control that they allowed company put all of its liquid assets into one investment vehicle and subseuqently lost not only significant amount of money becuase of what happened to the ARS market, but also expended legal resources, company time and human capital, not to mention what remains an undefineable opportunity cost had that money not been tied up and had all the efforts that needed to be concentrated to recover what they did and to provide the bridge financing they had to secure in the meantime. It was/is apparently "outwith" their control that performance bonuses that were purely at the "discretion of the BOD" were poured out to CEO's that were fired shortly thereafter, interim CEO's that had yet fulfilled any level of performance, not to mention any number of previous similar bonuses. It was/is apparently "outwith" their control that they continue to reward the BOD membership with exhorbitant board fees that are in line with those received by Fortune 500 BOD members.

Obviously, this tit-for-tat can go on ad infinitum, through the M&A efforts, through the partnership issue, etc., or at least until the hogs at the trough of PTSC have depleted or squandred all of its remaining resources. I won't go on.

The point to make is these "outwith" forces are not, or perhaps better said "SHOULD NOT" be considered in a vacuum. They are the "REaction" to PTSC's ACTIONS. They wouldn't exist if PTSC didn't embark on the direction this BOD directed. And furthermore, some, if not many of them could have been avoided altogether with a more keen eye on the details or more properly qualified PTSC representatives. Furthering the point, it's up to the STEWARDS of this company to make Lemonade out of Lemons, not Lemons out of Lemonade, which is what they have essentially done over the last 5 years.

Nobody's perfect nor is 100% success expected of anyone, INCLUDING this BOD. However, the antithesis to that can't be that you are allowed unlimited attempts to correct your past mistakes, regardless of how much damage you've done or are doing to the owners of the company. Arguments that support that are what are truly disingenous.