Very clever! Such adolescent sarcasim could serve as a learning tool for any teenager wishing to discover the magic of that form of communication. Too bad there was no way to demonstrate the "sarcasim strut" upon having issued such back-handed abuse.

And here we have a case where PTSC did nothing wrong, at all, and appears to have done everything right to resolve the problem and timely report to shareholders.

And this is what separates the positive camp from the negative camp.

The positive camp was aware of the planned filing status change, and stayed pretty much silent throughout this entire "non-event".

The negative camp went berzerk with criticism (and now sarcasim), even after "one of their own" had advised of her correct recollection of PTSC's intent from the VSM, and even after another advised that PTSC was aware. Complaints flew as some reported that they called PTSC to be greeted with a message machine.

PTSC, upon recognizing the problem, appears to have managed to work it to resolution in one day, complete with generation of a PR for release the next business day. Could this problem have been resolved any faster? IMO, no.

Why weren't they answering the phones? Maybe because they were fully engaged in working the problem, by which they had been blindsided by someone else's ineptitude? (apparently a communication breakdown between the SEC and FINRA).

Unless someone can advise as to how PTSC caused this problem, or could have avoided it, the criticism is not justified.

But I forgot, any and all criticism is automatically justified by the negative camp in the interest of increasing shareholder value. There doesn't have to be any real basis for the criticism, they are compelled to criticize, because somehow, in their minds, such action is for the betterment of this investment. Interesting that they can never explain exactly how THAT works.

Here we have criticism in the form of sarcasim that, to my eyes, is complete non-sense. Who EVER (PTSC or otherwise) suggested that timely SEC filings would increase shareholder value? But perhaps the focus is intended to be other things that PTSC could have done differently in the past. It's in the PAST!

But, with all this criticism, we never hear what, under present circumstances (as known), they would do different - what THEY would do.

Here I repeat an excerpt from a post of mine from 8/12/11, which (as always) went unanswered:

"Now, for the Paul Harvey part: what is being done by those you criticize NOW, TODAY? We are in a somewhat similar situation, it appears [to the times of the original MA].

Fortunately, PTSC has the financial where-with-all to stand firm. And this time, there is no risk of PTSC losing patent rights/ownership, and those patents are stronger having survived reexams. The only big issue for PTSC is that the clock is ticking.

What would you have PTSC do in the current situation?

Forge off on their own, facing the pitfalls addressed above? [you'll have to look at my original post to identify the pitfalls cited].

OR

See the court case through, confident of achieving satisfaction, meanwhile dangling our firm terms/BAFO for settlement in Lecky's face?

It sure looks like they are doing the latter. The pressure/risk is IMO far more on Lecky this time (this is key, and the key contrast with the circumstance of the past - almost a full reversal). But we suffer revenue delays.

Are you, or is anyone, unhappy with the current PTSC stance?"

I await your criticism and/or advice. And please spare me a revisit of the past. Try looking at the present and to the future, because that is the only place we have to go. With the current cards dealt, what would YOU do different? After all, IMO it is clear that the BIG ISSUE is our situation with Leckrone/TPL. It matters little how we got to where we are today; what really matters is how things are managed going forward.

SGE