"the first two years ... at this time no one was able to predict the legal and governmental changes.."

That's not true, many of those same posts you went back and read warned that the JV agreement provided for TPL to have complete control of licensing and the MMP, that they had two of their own people on the Management Committee, that we were subservient to DL, that we couldn't even put out PRs without his approval, etc, etc. The problems which were to come between TPL and PTSC are based and created within the very documents the BOD themselves negotiated and that Shareholders expressed concern about from the start. Our subsequent legal problems with DL were well in the realm of the forseeable, especially due to the contractual potential for abuse and the history of the parties; together and individually.

Also, court cases are well known in advance that become ripe for SCOTUS and will be likely heard by them. Additionally, Leadership is NOTHING if it isn't forward looking and anticipating impacts to your business. I even think PTSC paid an extra $200K for DL's political outreach to legislators in an attempt to sway their views as early as 2007 or 2008; so we were aware of the changing winds even back then. The Case on downstream users had to do with how contracts were written, and that specific issue could be circumvented going forward with how prosecution was scheduled and contracts were subsequently drawn up.

"...there's only one thing which distinguishes a good from a bad company: management"

Agreed .. and it's especially so for smaller companies.

"Why do you hammer on the management for more than a decade knowing it doesn't make a difference for the success of the company, simply because the powers which decide about the MMP's fate are outside of the management's authority ?"

Glad you brought this up, because it dispels the myth that I now only post "negative" observations and comments because I'm trying to buy more shares, or somehow have a vendeta, or whatever fantasy the haters and those in denial of PTSC's reality want to promote.

PTSC's BOD and management has always been weak. In the late 1990s and the the early 2000s when tech was flying high and Java was on the tip of everyone's tongue, it mattered little because investment was flowing into unproven companies; and PTSC was embarking on an ambitious goal of introducing their own Native java processor. As 2002-2005 developed, the BOD had established a history of failing to deliver a market for the chip or even a widely accepted commercial product, and so instead of have microprocessor sales to generate income, we got into the systematic business of selling PTSC stock, and diluting the company from 40 million shares to the tune of half a billion shares. All during this time, just as now, Carl and Gloria were the power center of the BOD. That said, even with the company uncomfortably capitalized as it was, there was 10 years of Patent protection remaining; still a generous amount of time to establish a long term, concrete, formidable and effective strategy to license the biggest players in the EE fields and generate market attention and increasing value and options for the company.

Every company has an "inflection point". Most companies that are started and that have less than experienced leadership, especially in highly technical companies, has leadership that does what's best for the company and it's investors by steping aside and letting more knowlegable, connected and qualified people take over the company reins. They also do this for selfish reasons, because usually they are substantial investors or the companies largest stockholders. Except for the Falk Family's interest, PTSC's BOD had very little skin in the game; the BOD players stayed, maintained their power, and squandred what could have become of that inflection moment. Alas, I think we all are now experiencing first hand the result of huberus, arrogance, ego and greed that occurs when a company's leadership fails to accept their own limitations.

"management doesn't make the big difference ... because their (our) product is much, much bigger and stronger than any management .."

I strongly disagree. It's because our management is weak that the problems we're having have occurred. The MMP is not bigger and stronger than our management, this was the mistaken precept all of us have made, this was my greatest error.

The current state of all things MMP is a direct reflection of the Mismanagement of the asset. You may claim that it's the Infingers who demanded the reexams, the suits, the costs, delays, etc, but that's standard operating procedure for these companies to push back against patents making our kinds of sweeping claims. They don't roll over and just write checks. But why is it that many other licensing companies have gone through the same PTO, delays, contests and litigation troubles we have, and yet they successfully emerge with very large legacy awards and licenses ? We haven't, ever. You may argue that it was DL who is respnsible for screwing up the Licensings with low fees, comingling, high dollar bluffings, delays, fraud, etc, but that's conveniently and intellectually dishonest because it lets PTSC's leadership off the hook for clearly and voluntarily granting him those powers with little practical non litigation recourse, again and again, which abused and wasted our assets ..and still is BTW.

We don't conduct any business inhouse, and there is no doubt that DL is far far more experienced than our side to conduct the patent licensing, but that's makes it especially important that we have strong and experienced Management that understands and monitors all those outside people and influences that will absolutely impact us since we're relying on them 100%. This is where our Management's business judgement, competence, capabilities and trustworthness comes into play. Seeing the 5 penny stock price, zero company confidence, and our fastly eroding patent infringment recovery time remaining, it's pretty obvious where responsibility for our company's failure lies; and it needs to be said.