Let me take some of your statements of fact:

S&L bled the company to death and mgmt stood by while it happened.

PTSC now has zero assets?

Both were financially sound companies with strong reoccuring revenues.

So they had no losses or debt liability?

In both instances the board and CEO's stood firm in protecting the company and in turn the shareholders.

Was there no benefit to the directors?

What is most disturbing about that statement is the fact that Mr. Swartz wins regardless of the outcome.

What was the valuation of PTSC at the time of the S&L financing and by what percentage did S&L increase that valuation?

With no income and contested patent ownership rights, how could PTSC convince a commercial lender to loan a similar amount?

What is the average return on venture capital?

If I ran a company it would be much more comforting to know I had $50/million in liquidity versus $20/million.

Are you forgetting the the Holocom investment, the shares in treasury, and the Fish settlement?

How many warrants could S&L exercise before the renegotiated arrangement?

Would you prefer $50million in cash and 100,000,000 outstanding warrants or just $20million in cash and no warrants?

The S&L funding, like or loathe it, got PTSC to where it is now(you might like to read the Q's and K's to see where it was). TPL/Alliasence are dealing with patent infringement/licensing. It is where PTSC goes now that is important.

Be well