I never quite understood what PTSC hoped to accomplish with this conference since I can`t believe too many ``analysts`` would be interested/allowed to be interested in a 10 cent stock. I think exposure would have been the order of the day. Nothing more, nothing less. If Pohl got up there and farted incessantly but announced we had signed a $50 million licensing agreement with Sony would the analysts have decided not to follow PTSC because of Pohl`s flatulence?

Speaking of Sony, what I heard in Pohl`s response was that it was a ``strategic move`` to leave Sony out of the new lawsuit. So I guess I`m reading into things, or hyping, in figuring this can ONLY be a good thing. What could the strategic move mean....are Sony`s chips that much different from everyone else`s that they are not infringing while everyone else is? Anybody want to figure the likelihood of that? Probably costs the same amount of money to type in five names as opposed to four names in the suit, right? OK, maybe costs an extra couple hundred dollars for service to the Sony attorneys. That`s probably the ``strategic move``. We`ll save that couple hundered until we absolutely need to spend it.

All that being said, I would say as of today I am definitely not a Pohl fan. His ``order of magnitude`` pr bordered on the ridiculous IMO. In addition, his focus on how much ``growth`` we`ve shown makes me think he is ``analyst`` on the RB board. When you start out with just about nothing of course you get a tremendous percentage growth if you add even a small number in revenues/assets. Who does he think he`s fooling? He should be focusing on FUTURE possibilities. Answer the tough questions - will there be recurring revenue streams in future licenses? What types of companies are they looking to acquire/merge, etc. with - if they come up with a company even remotely related to Norris, Swartz, et al I`ll be giving my good friend ronran a call.

Alright, enough venting. Everybody have a nice day - except for the ones I don`t like.