Is the objective of PTSC to simply maintain existance as an operating entity for a specified lifespan, or is it the objective of PTSC to be successful as a valuable stock investment for it's Shareholders ? I seriously wonder.

Carl, Gloria and Cliff are probably thinking about their Oct 31st $40,000+ in total cash pay, just like at the end of every month for the past 5 years (at least $2.5M in cash for just those three "leaders" alone); all while they have pretty much presided over turning this company into a coin-priced stock, brought us ever more precarious towards the 2015 date of Patent expiration, and placed all future prospects the company has on the efforts and integrity of presumably the very same man we sued for fraud and fiduciary breaches and claims that he was essentially threatening to hold MMP licensing hostage unless/until we loaned or gave him more money; and the same man whom Moore, the MMP inventor, is also presently suing under Breach, perhaps Fraud, and other contract claims.

We still have enough cash in the bank to exist in life support (employee/overhead support) mode for some time, so why should PTSC's BOD members feel any urgency or worry with the frequency rate or fee level of the license signings so long as operating expenses continue to be covered ? Besides, combined, these three take home tens of thousands in cash every single month, regardless if the stock is 8 cents, 5 cents or 25 cents. Things are apparently going so swimingly for PTSC that the BOD rewarded Cliff with a 6 figure Bonus and a 6% raise in FY ending May 2012. I find it shameful that Cliff actually took it, and that he apparently felt he deserved it after such continuous poor performance for Shareholders; especially since the stock reached 5 cents (7 year lows) during that same timeframe, and additionally he's not even an actual Shareholder after 3 years as the CEO in the company. As for Carl and Gloria being the Compensation Committee and determining Cliff earned that extra cash compensation, their long history of pay decisions for those employed and affiliated with PTSC is an interesting study in itself.

Speaking of Moore, below is what PTSC wrote in their Amended Complaint for Fraud and Breach and Unjust Enrichment against TPL. Although we have since settled our case with TPL which was said to have resulted in a new Comm Ag & protective terms, including the redacted name of the Licensing Agent (though subsequent indications point to TPL or one of their related companies remaining the Agent, and if so, IMO the redaction was only done to try to hide the status quo from PTSC Shareholders), disolving mutual interests in the MMP's commercialization may still loom directly ahead. Take Note: the potential consequence of competing licensing entities is something I've written and cautioned about in the past ...

"68. In the event Moore has prevailed on his claims to terminate his own Commercialization Agreement with TPL by the time of or during trial of the present case, that termination of the Moore-TPL Commecialization Agreement provides an additional ground and basis for Patriot to declare the Patriot-TPL Commercialization Agreement terminated."

So... irregardless of our now settled suit with TPL, if Moore prevails against TPL for Breaches (fraud ?, etc, I don't recall all Moore's Claims), PTSC's statement above suggests such an event would stand alone to be ".. ground and basis for Patriot to declare the Patriot-TPL Commercialization Agreement terminated." So, if it's "ground and basis" for PTSC to terminate the TPL relationship if Moore succeeds, and if Moore gets his MMP ownership Agreements and "his own Comm Ag with TPL terminated", I suspect PTSC would again move to ask the court to terminate PTSC's Comm AG with TPL. The question then becomes what level of MMP interest (if any) would TPL be left with, and if it is additionally determined that Moore was fraudently induced by TPL into signing a Comm Ag that included PTSC, what then ? IMO, the end result would, at the very least, leave all parties independent, unaffiliated, and without any obligation to participate with the others; and leave each free to License the MMP on their own.

Personally, I doubt Moore and his associates will be understanding should PTSC come hat in hand seeking a two party Moore-PTSC Comm Ag to pursue MMP licensing. Due to Moore's organization's vastly scaled down structure and their focus on commercializing/licensing his more recent patented technologies, should Moore go it alone, I believe he will easily best and effectively block out PTSC (or PTSC & TPL) in every aspect of MMP licensing, and also likely not be cooperative in necessarily joining with PTSC for any infringment suit consideration.