You cite in a subsequent post that someone "screwed up the release" or something to that effect.

There's no mistake or screw up there. The problem is simply that there is a lack of understanding by the writer of this story of what the MMP's actual application is. That's largely the fault of the writer, but also partially falls on the shoulders of PTSC and TPL for not publicizing the breadth of the MMP's applicaitons.

Clearly, the technology that is included in modern jet engines, elevators, heathing and cooling systems, helicopters, and fuel cells will rely on microprocessors that utilize the MMP technology. There's no need for UTC to be branching into "personal digital technology" in order to need the rights to the MMP. However, that's clearly not understood by the writer of the story you cited.

Obviously, this is a bit of a tricky area and hard to "place blame" on PTSC for a writer's own ignorance and lack of understanding, and that's not my intent. Rather, what I think this represents is an opportunity to communicate with the writer and get him to follow up with an article or correction that explains how prevalent the MMP tech is in so many different applications that might not seem readily apparent to people. That's a proactive method of getting the word out on the MMP, its succeses and strengths, and at the same time promoting PTSC in a SUBSTANTIVE way and getting new people (read: POTENTIAL INVESTORS) aware of PTSC the company and the stock.

What are the chances they take advantage of it?