In response to item 1, I'm surprised that if indeed you think what you write is likely accurate, that you're NOT perplexed that our BOD doesn't have a better grasp on the likely timing of litigation in which it is immersed.

In response to item 2 where you cite, "The settlement simply removed an obstacle."

Let's just think about that one minute. What exactly WAS the obstacle. For the settlement to have removed it, the obstacle had to be considered the suit filed by PTSC. So, in essence, the settlement removed the obstacle that PTSC put in the path of licensing.

Again, I'm dumbfounded that with nothing to validate or confirm that any actual gains were made through the settlement, other than of course the "we can't tell you but take our word for it" description for which you thanked PTSC, that you cite this as an accomplishment worth noting.

Perhaps if the 3 BOD'ges increase their pay by 80%, and then a month later reduce it by 40%, that would be considered also worthy of thanks and of removing an obstacle to excessive cash burn?! Hmmm....

In response to item 3, if you indeed view settling as in the best interests of shareholders, then with nothing to point to as having been gained through the process, by contrast, you must think that filing suit was NOT in the best interests of shareholders.