With all due respect, I honestly don't understand why this discussion keeps resurfacing.

Yes, IMO everyone is disappointed in PTSC's performance - seriously disappointed. Yes, many/most feel that change would be an improvement. But then we have reality staring us in the face. Change isn't going to happen (for at least three years) unless the BoD elects to make it happen, or enables the possibility for it to happen.

You suggest there is no need for a BoD. See Sarbanes-Oxley (though the requirement existed prior). It would appear that a corporation must have a BoD consisting of at least three people by mandate.

We can argue endlessly (as this board has) about the past, the (actual magnitude) of failures, how they happened, etc. IMO, it doesn't matter to our future as much as some suggest.

People keep asking "what's the plan". IMO, that question has been answered as possible by the company. They've stated their intent.

No new M&A.

Do something with PDSG (where IMO things have been stiffled for many months due to the Government - no budget means no new contracts). While it is distressing to basically "be on hold", burning cash, it comes down to whether to just liquidate or hold for something better. What would you do?

Fight Leckrone and implement changes for our benefit to the MA/ComAg. It would appear they are doing just that. And, IMO, the longer the wait, the better the probable outcome. But time is passing....

They have stated their intent for future revenues: dividends (though some hope that they build a "war chest" before initiating).

Bottom line IMO is that it is what it is, and it's going to stay that way for the foreseeable future. Noise can continue to be made, but EVERYONE (including the BoD) is aware of the disappointment we all feel, and the reasons for that disappointment (which may be perceived in different ways by different shareholders).

What do we have to look forward to?

Something to happen with/for PDSG (now that a budget is passed).

A good resolution of the dispute with Leckrone.

Licensing, licensing, licensing, with revenues returned via dividends.

A good settlement with the T3 (because, IMO, it is unlikely to actually go to trial - 95% of such cases don't).

That's where we're at, IMO.

Seeking change in PTSC's management may be desired, but is not likely to happen from "within". Force change? IMO, it would be a classic case of shooting yourself in the foot.

To be fair, it is probably a good thing for this to resurface occasionally, with a simple "shareholders are generally disappointed with PTSC and its management's past performance" for the benefit of newbies. Everyone else KNOWS. And lengthy discussion, again and again, is the root of pointless infighting. It is not healthy for the participants, or for this investment.

We do have a common goal here, right? That being for PTSC to perform so they - and most importantly WE - can make money.

Like it or not, this is up to the folks currently at the helm, along with Leckrone (play nice), infringers (pay up), the T3 (fat settlement), the USPTO (quit playing around), and for PDSG - ultimately the Government. Even with new folks at the helm, it won't change the other "variables" that are all beyond PTSC's real control.

FWIW, and I'm holding (and it would appear that most are doing likewise).

SGE