My own opinion on our "perplexing" shareprice and the like...in the money people are doing the smart thing - taking some profits off the table prior to the Markman. IMO that's exactly what S & L is doing with their selling/converting. The Markman is IMO perceived to be the make or break event. Either our investment is a winner, or it is a loser (I'm not saying that that's an accurate statement, I'm saying that is the perception) based on the outcome of the Markman. With all due respect to Ron's opinion regarding missed PR potential, I don't think any amount of PR could have overcome this. At least in the last couple of months. Maybe some PR could have helped a year ago when the slide from the highs started, but I think the thinking (of investors) at that time was focused on other things anyway - more licenses, Sony, etc. If memory serves correct, I believe some posters did take our leadership to task after last years ASM for not "getting the story out there" more. Perhaps they were focused on other things, perhaps they are incompetent. I happen to agree with a statement Bushleague made recently. Paraphrasing, I would rather our management be focusing on increasing the intrinsic value of our company, than worrying about the day to day price of the stock. Build the intrinsic value, shareprice will eventually follow. IMO we're in this building stage now. Noone here knows anything about how the Holocom deal will play out. Yet people come on here and complain that nothing has materialized regarding addtional revenue streams. These same people would be bitching if we paid $20 million for a company that produces about $1-$5 million in profit each year. But that's what it would cost. So instead we paid $700k for a company that could possibly produce an even higher profit than the $1-5 million range. Only thing is, it will take time, and building, and risk. Sorry, that's just the way it is. So that's where we are now.

I do think a message regarding perks that have been doled out in the last year (or 8) should be sent to management. As biajj used to say, the "good ole boy" mentality must stop. If there is one message that should be sent in Ron's letter, I believe that is the one.

As far as the BOD, as one poster recently posted, how can anyone here judge what any one Director brings to the table. Based on the fact that they are a doctor or a CPA, and not a techie???? Bullshit. If you haven't sat in on a BOD meeting, or at least talked to the Directors, you have no clue whether they are valuable to PTSC or not. I've known electrical engineers that made the worst businessmen. And I've known highschool dropouts that built a business worth millions. How many here would have thought a highschool dropout would have made a good Director? Probably not one of you. Yet I can name more than one that would beat the hell out of a lot of techies that people would have swooned over if they joined our board.

Remember to read the title of this post again after you read it. GLTA