Of course there is resistance to collecting License fees, you think DL and the BOD were that naive to think companies would just roll over and hand them millions of dollars ? That article really says nothing new in Licensing as a revenue model; big companies have been bullying, cheating, and beating on small inventors for 100 years; go read up on it. Litigation and delay has always been part of the business of Licensing and Infringment prosecution. Besides .. this article does not reflect our situation.

DL brought PDS well over $300,000,000, and probably would have brought in more than twice as much to PDS if the PTSC BOD had not participated in drafting and agreeing to such a one sided Operating Agreement, had demanded more oversight, and had taken more of an interest (or retained a more qualified individual for our side) in actively contributing in a managing role at maximizing license fees and the MMP asset generally.

The problem at PTSC was that the BOD they took their eye off the ball ... they appeared happy to sit back and give DL almost total authority, and when they had the legal leverage to force a change in the power dynamics, they mysteriously and surprisingly backed off, which allowed DL the flexibility to damage us even further. Additionally, the BOD foolishly and stubbornly thought they could profitably manage the revenues that flowed from the MMP; and oh how foolish that proved to be ...

After losing tens of millions of dollars, and disasterously failing at 5 or 6 out of the 6 or 7 business inititives they entered but knew nothing about, I've see their corporate maneuvers and efforts as little (if nothing) more than avoiding accountability and responsibility, and maintaining a high paying jobs program for themselves.

PTSC leadership, alone, is responsible for the failing and current near death of our company.