Thank you for your response, and apologies for my late reply (hey, it's the weekend! LOL).  A click above will take you to envexed's post, a click there will take you to my proposal.

First I'll hit on your constructive criticism of my proposed Agreement.  It is constructive, in that it allows further discussion and clarification.  Would S&L "buy in" to such a proposal?  THAT becomes a question of GREED.  I can't get a strong feel for where they really stand here.  I went around this with Fut the other day.  Yes, on the surface it appears there is a high level of greed (actually, IMO, more exploitation).  But S&L has and continues to do things that defy an "extreme greed" attitude.  If they were extremely greedy, would they convert a single share before they had to (i.e., expiration)?  Or would they wait?  IMO, the scenaio is a "wash" for them (assuming they don't necessarily want control of too many shares).  They sell to convert.  Does it matter what the share price is?  So, IMO, they are making concessions in the interest of improving PTSC's (and shareholders, including themselves) stead. They have been selling and converting.  Their selling appears to have been done in a thoughtful fashion, IMO.  Face it, if they really wanted all the money they could get, ASAP, they could sell us down to oblivion. But they appear to be selling in a fashion where there is minimal (short term) impact on the PPS.  Yes, it hurts.  But they have the capacity to hurt us a great deal more.  They obviously don't have the will or desire to do that.  Thus, they must be thinking longer term.  And that's good for us.  So would they buy in on the proposal?  Possibly, IMO.

And note a few things about the proposed S&L Share Sales Prohibition Agreement: 

You suggest that $5 is a high initial threshold. Agreed, but I did cite it as an example ("e.g."). However, my intent in suggesting $5 is for a reason, as that is a criterion for getting listed on a major exchange.

Also note that I stated in the proposed language "Excluded from the Agreement should be direct sales of shares from S&L to PTSC at the prevailing share price at the time of such event".  So S&L could still sell shares to PTSC, which would aid PTSC in fulfilling their commitment of using at least 10% of future proceeds to buy make shares (with a bunch of caveats).  So S&L would have one "out".

And this opens another important door.  Was that commitment by PTSC BINDING in any way?  IMO, no.  It was a statement of intent. And it was welcomed and well-received by all (probably including S&L).

The proposed agreement between PTSC and S&L could include all the same type caveats.  For that matter, IMO, the agreement could even say that it's non-binding.  But it would be a statement of intent, hopefully acted upon.  And it would be well received by all, especially prospective investors.

Today, prospective investors look at a stock that has had great news for over a year.  Then they look at the movement of the PPS and walk away.  Or they looked at the litigation with Fish or the old law firm, and walked away (fortunately those issues are now gone). Or they look at the outstanding warrants and walk away.  And when they someday see the warrants gone, they see a 10% stakeholder that might just continue to sell into any good news, and yep, they might just walk away.

But with that 10% stakeholder stating their intent, via any agreement with the company (essentially, US), to hold until certain PPS thresholds are met, and then be able to sell only within limtis until a higher threshold is met, the prospective investor can see a real opportunity, and not a big question mark.  IMO, prospective investors probably see the S&L situation as a great element of risk than the validity of the patents (though it sure would be nice to see THAT risk removed).

Now the last part of the proposal - promote the hell out of it.  Grab attention.  IMO, such a tasty bit of news would be big, very big.

PTSC has been pecking away at the perceived elements of risk.  They've resolved two disputes that were hanging.  They bought back some (not enough) shares.  And S&L has appear to be somewhat cooperative.  Selling-converting, prudently selling (and have they significantly reduced their share holdings, after conversions? NO>).  This would be the next big step. Another big element of risk removed.

Well, now that I've written another novel....Another reply coming your way re: your concerns/thoughts.

Thank you for your attention,

AJMHO,

And I KNOW nuttin'!

SGE