TTCCRR, I still await a complete, coherent reply to my post this morning.  I am open to ideas that have a possibility of improving my investment here.  But all I've heard in the way of ideas from you sound like a giant step backwords.  I'll repost that message to make it that much easier for you.

As for Fut's assertion re: warrants and divys and how they should/must be earned - I suggest the qualified warrants were earned via the risk taken by S&L when PTSC had very little going for it other than a chip design nobody wanted.  The divys derived from those warrants were earned in the same way WE earned them - by assuming risk.

I again ask anyone willing to answer:  If S&L was so darned interested in receiving divys based on the qualified warrants, why have they been selling shares to enable conversion of warrants?  After all, the company has stated its intent to issue divys semi-annually.

Some suggest that the selling/converting may be to mitigate the risk of the Markman.  A logical conclusion....  But if they considered the risk THAT great, why haven't they sold off (some) of the some 40M shares they hold/maintain?  Why haven't they dumped all the shares necessary to convert all the warrants?, and then shares after that?  Why are they allowing/enabling the PPS to hold relatively well? (albeit in the proverbial "basement" - which happens to be a 10-timeser+ from 18 months ago).

The only logical conclusion I can come up with is that S&L is concerned for the health of the company, which is good for all shareholders.  Removing the warrants is a big issue, and they recognize and are acting on it in a reasonable way.  They also demonstrate confidence in PTSC's future.  S&L is now (and has been for over a year) in the same basic boat as retail.  Why people continue to bitch about S&L, at this point in the game, is beyond me.  It's like maintaining faith in a negative attitude, when all the evidence points in the opposite direction.

Legal action because the warrants were registered as "qualified"?  I could see some justification for such action IF S&L had NOT converted a single warrant, thereby indicating the importance to them to keep on getting those divys off the warrants.  But the inverse is the fact of the matter.

It just seems to me that if there's bitching to be done about the current BoD, there are better targets than S&L representation (anybody found a public company with a 10% shareholder that doesn't have representation on the BoD? I thought not....).

Apparently S&L is just considered an easy target.  Why?  Is it because they took a giant risk with their money and have been rewarded?  And how many retail shareholders are in that boat?  Should we be denied our reward? (especially the fortunate risk-takers who bought at 4 friggin' cents).

All JMHO.

Now I'll repost that message for ttccrr to consider and STFU until some symbolence of a reply is provided.

SGE

BTW, people have made noise about what Pohl said in the AMS about their candidates for his replacement.  M&A guy or IB guy.  IMO, they realized they had that expertise via S&L representation.  They've got it down.  So, other than that, what else would be best?  Maybe a recognized name in the industry, and the credibility that offered.  And that person, like S&L, was right under their nose.  And like S&L, no learning curve.

Then why not make S&L's man CEO?  In my (limited) experience re: M&As/IB's, they are usually contracted by companies based on need/resources. They aren't necessarily retained as employees.  But the credibility guy, he has to be a high level employee to derive the credibility.  And we do have to give Turley a friggin' chance.  Complaining after ONE WEEK on the job is pretty lame - no, very lame.

Come on Ward!  End the agony!