I can still buy Pohl's "perplexed" statement.  He (like many of us) may have thought that, based on the broad scope of infringement on the patents, the demand for PTSC would way outstrip supply, even if S&L was dumping.

I think this a very reasonable proposition.  And I think that ANYONE invested in the stock and that had a clue thought exactly the same thing.  But, as it turned out, things happened (or, I should say, didn't happen) that defied logic.

Example 1:  Recognizing the clout of the companies that had already licensed at that point, wouldn't it have been reasonable to expect a lot more infringers to step up at a fast clip?  And include the Js in there (Fujitsu and Sony had already licensed).

Example 2:  Based on what AMD did and the example they presented, wasn't it reasonable expect infringers to buy stock in those relatively early days, right up to the 5% reporting limit, with the (again reasonable) expectation that as time went on and more companies licensed, the value of the stock would rise and offset the cost of the license (and then some)?

If you had these very reasonable expectations floating in your head, wouldn't you be a little perplexed?  WEREN"T YOU?  AREN"T YOU, even today, recognizing the above (especially if you had/have complete confidence in our legal team to prevail)?

Please, never again call Pohl a liar on this.  He couldn't figure out why these things weren't happening, and thus why the PPS floundered.  Neither could we!  Are you calling EVERYONE here a liar?  If that's your attitude, then please go away!

JMHO,

SGE