I have been reading your columns for a long time, so I was very disappointed to see the recent coverage you provided on PTSC.

There is nothing wrong with a negative assessment of any company if it is warranted; PTSC still faces an uphill climb in some regards—especially the uncertainly of ongoing and future litigation. Certainly nothing in that arena is bankable.

However, the balance that one would expect from such a complex evaluation of PTSC in such a high-profile media outlet like yours is sorely lacking. In fact, it is nonexistent. From the outset, your article has a negative rather than balanced slant, and the clear intent seems to be a no-so-veiled effort to bash the stock immediately before its Annual Shareholder’s Meeting.

I have been deeply researching this company for many years, and that includes lengthy discussions with insiders, hi-tech experts, patent lawyers, etc. I spent twelve years as an attorney in Silicon Valley, so my contacts in this regard both in the Valley and across the country are legion. To a man, these people disagree with your negative assessment, evaluation, and outlook for PTSC. I would say the consensus of the informed is cautious optimism.

For me, one of the key giveaways to your ostensibly objective financial evaluation was this sentence:

“David Pohl, Patriot`s chairman, chief executive and president, wasn`t available for an interview by press time, according to a company spokesman.”

Mr. Pohl is readily available, and in fact is quite easy to get in touch with both by phone or email. If he had known you were going to do an in-depth piece on his company, I know he would have been able to par 15 minutes of his time away from his busy schedule to accommodate your questions. But of course, you never had any intention of interviewing Mr. Pohl.

I will no longer be reading your columns, and am sorely disappointed with what you have done.

Kind regards,

TPS