I agree with you on the continuing PR's and if one just read the many headlines out there today on the Lego announcement one can see we are getting our name out in the marketplace more than ever before IMO.

Also share your thoughts on the "one-hit -wonders' statement...to an extent. Probably just a bad terminology used there.

Our problem is not that our future doesn't look very bright right now, our problem is that when licenses such as these occur many time the details of these agreements are kept out of the public view.

With that in mind, the ongoing assumption is that these licenses are for a better term...one-time payments...with ongoing, recurring revenue attached. Now, there may be royalties for future production of the patented items bhut we and the rest of the POTENTIAL investing public don';t know that for sure.

As long as these licenses are deemd one -time payments it's almost impossible to calculate future revenue growth on an ongoing basis, and EPS is really uncalculable when in most cases analysts exclude "one-time" revenue just like one-time charges from their calculations on EPS and future growth. That in-turn handicaps any PE calculations too, which is another tool used by those in the investing circles who may or could drop some big-time cash into this investment.

That being said, until there are PR's that are permissable to delineate more information out of the license agreements,regarding future/ongoing income, we may find ourselves continually scratching our heads as to why there is no more positive movement ont he PPS.

That's why, IMO, Mr. Turley's statement the other day regarding using the company cash for either instituting or acquiring a second line of ...ongoing....income was the most important item to me in his interview. Yes,dividends like the last two years will cease, but IMO he's putting the company money to better use by hopefully acquiring that additional line of revenue even over trying to start one from scratch.

Lego IMO made a smart business decision, if in fact they agreed to a one-time payment. It's probably a lot cheaper for them to sign one now before any judicial ruling in Texas and they also decided they wanting nothing to do with a jury trial and the legal expense that accompanies that too.

It was great for us and good for them at the same time. All I can hope for now is that future licensees are made to pay ongoing royalties with any upfront settlement fees. If that info ever gets to the street, IMO, we'll really take off.

JMHO and opposing views, as always, welcomed....GLTA