<You seem to want to engage in battles with me and others for the sake of arguing and little else. >

"for the sake of arguing"? That is not true. I believe there is either an opinion or a point to what I say. Perhaps I need to make my opinions and points more obvious to the reading public?

<1. Did you vote for majority voting last year and if so, what do you think of the BoD's move to circumvent the will of the shareholders?>

Yes I voted for it. When they agreed to include it, I suspect they were hoping that the Barco etal case would be settled and licensing activity ongoing by the time the proxy was issued. Since that appears unlikely, it does not surprise me that they backed off. I would have done the same if in their shoes.

2. Regarding the frequently asked question about why there has been no increase in licensing activity since the settlement....What do you honestly think of the "weak at best" answer that refers back to standard risk language in every financial statement?

There are many posts on this board which makes reference to how important the upcoming Markman is. I agree that, at this point in the game, a favorable Markman is necessary for any hope to get the licensing machine running again. As PTSC said. The settlement simply removed an obstacle.

3. When asked how Patriot could abandon the serious claims levied against TPL by PTSC, the company responded that they believed the achievments afforded by the settlement were in the best interest of the licensing program and therefore Patriot's shareholders. I will remind you that in the first amended complaint Patriot asked

For a declaration of Patriot’s right to declare the ComAg terminated

To me, this was a clear message that PTSC wanted no continued interest in the licensing program with TPL and yet....suddenly it is once again in the best interest of shareholders. What do you think about this?

It matters little whether or not PTSC meant what is quoted above. It would have taken another year or more of waiting for the opportunity with no guarantee of the court granting it. PTSC said settling was in the best interest of the company and its shareholders. You are free to disagree, but I suspect that it probably was.

Opty