While lately we've agreed on a lot of things, we're in near total disagreement re: your post.

One thing that I think we can agree on, not mentioned in your post (out of context), is that this message board has gone berserk. So everyone can get a full grip on that statement, you need to KNOW where the word "berserk" came from. In ages past, prior to a battle, one side would take prisoners, misfits, and otherwise tainted people and drug them up, then send them into an independent "attack" on their enemy. They were called "berserkers", and they would be sent running, naked and unarmed, screaming and arms flaling, toward their enemy as a type of psychological warfare, just to freak out their enemy. Here, we have a similar scenario, though our berserkers may be self-motivated for whatever reason. This board has become, for the most part, a waste of time. It seems very few took my advice to "yield to the occasion", albeit the "occasion" certainly wasn't what any of us expected.

Everyone, IMO, just needs to get a grip on reality. It's taken me a couple of days to settle down and think things through. I am extremely disappointed as to how things panned out. But the situation "is what it is", and if this is what it took to "make the deal", so be it. I tried a "What's next?" post yesterday, but it seemed to fall on deaf ears, overwhelmed with bitching and moaning, and demands for certain things to happen that simply won't/can't.

I saw your post as a segway toward voicing my opinions, along with a regergitation of "What's next?". Here goes, and it's probably going to be a long one. Statements from your post are in bold for clarity.

It's going to take time and I think Turley and management are making strong efforts in this direction.

This comment makes very little sense when looking at the evidence compared to what you suggest. It hits on a couple of your points, but on others it's a complete "miss" IMO.

They need to merge with a solid company with synergies that make sense.

IMO, mergers can be very messy - with the lingering problem of "who's in charge?". We need acquisitions, placing PTSC in a position of CONTROL. That is, of course, unless you desire another situation like we have with TPL, with whom we essentially merged our interests toward captializing on the patent portfolio. But synergy, or as JT has stated, getting into something they KNOW about (and not a tampon company, or toothpaste maker), is essential to enable proper exercise of the CONTROL. WE KNOW this is their intent, and it'll happen when they are ready to make it happen - and IMO it could come at any time, and more than once.

They need to change their image and business plan. Even change the name and the symbol. The stigma that's been created is weighing us down.

The image will inherently change with a strong acquisition. We'll no longer be purely regarded as a "patent troll".

Change the business plan? You just said they needed to merge with someone, but I think your intent actually was to ACQUIRE someone. THAT IS THEIR BUSINESS PLAN! Thus, THAT suggestion makes no sense to me, as this IS what they're going to do.

Change their name? Why? They need to hide for some reason? We've already got some name recognition with the 32+ licensees to date, and you want to throw that away and try and hide behind a new name? The change would be obvious to EVERYONE. And the change will cost a lot of money, for no real return.

SIDEBAR Story: While I was at Hughes Aircraft, they had an "Employee Suggestion Program" (ESP - catchy, huh). Some moron suggested they change the name to just "Hughes" because we didn't build aircraft (just satellites, light missiles, and aircraft components). Other morons, all the way up the food chain, approved the idea. Every letterhead, account, etc., etc., etc., had to be altered to accomodate this change for some perceived good. It took years. Cost? Well over $10M, and probably much more. Benefit: Confusion with a SoCal supermarket chain also named "Hughes". No other "benefit". Brilliant!

They need to get beyond being a company that generates all their revenue from another company. If TPL traded on the open market they'd be at $10/$15 shareprice perhaps much higher. They're doers, we're not, not yet. It's not easy to market a company with little to say in the way of what they do. Besides collecting money.

Okay, this is already known to be their business plan. Acquire another company(ies) with synergy toward developing multiple revenue streams. So they need to do what they've already said they are going to do. Thank you for that insight! What TPL does is their business.

What doesn't need to happen:

They don't need to give a dividend, it didn't work in the past and won't work now either, merely distributing money for appeasement purposes is not doing anything. It was a mistake then and it would be a mistake now.

I completely agree.

They don't need to buy back shares, that's also not doing anything, not constructive, didn't work in the past and still won't work now.

Here I completely disagree. Shares bought back are monies in the bank. While company officers are prohibited from acquiring shares, the company is not IMO. It IS doing something - probably the smartist thing, and it is very constructive with a few basic and realistic assumptions (I'll expand on this later). Didn't work in the past? How do you KNOW this? When we slipped into the .30s recently and they were buying back shares, that may have/probably stopped a further slip. And the fruits of that effort are yet to be fully borne (but, even today, that action doubled their money, and I'd call that a complete success!).

What we need to happen:

We need for the company to give as more direction as to where they're headed. We need more visibility, somethings they can't disclose, but they could get a bit creative you'd think? They need to ungag Turley, and take off his constraints, give the guy half a chance, at least.

They've told us their intent to acquire another synergistic entity - at least one where they are cognizant of the product and market. What further can they possibly tell us without prematurely letting the cat out of the bag? Saying ANYTHING before it's time would be incredibly stupid. Creative? A puzzle of some sort? Causing endless, fruitless speculation? Or worse, actually letting the cat out of the bag to their own detriment? In the game in which they are now engaged, silence is truly golden, IMO.

These things may or may not be in the works, it'd be nice if some positives were forthcoming. We're long overdue.

Well we KNOW the acquisition thing IS in the works. Dividends are out. Hopefully IMO share buy-backs are in. Silence is golden until deals are done. And yes, as of two days ago, we are certainly overdue for some positives.

One huge positive that could easily happen VERY soon, IMO, is largely dependent on TPL (that's just the way it is). That would be announcement of a new license with one of the big boys - TI, IBM, Apple, Sun, MOT, or other of that big buck ilk. IF such an announcement included the dollar amount, and it was over $50M (more = better), THAT would be very telling re: what the Js must have paid. This is the only thing I can see on the immediate horizon that could really turn things around. So Turley should be directing his attention toward convincing TPL to enable this to happen ASAP (and he may have some leverage based on the language of the Master Agreement to support this argument, e.g., it would be an action in the best long and short term interest of PTSC and TPL, and failure upsets PTSC's fulfillment of its business plan, etc., etc.).

Now, finally, some realistic assumptions IMO regarding PTSC's true value at this point and justification for aggressive share buy-backs.

Does ANYONE here think that there is any possibility that PTSC got less than $50M out of TX? IMO, this is bare bones minimum. Excluding legal costs, this would be roughly equivalent to each of the 3 Js paying approximately the same as Fujitsu paid. Fujitsu was pre-Markman, pre other motions/denials, etc. $50M net to PTSC, in some fashion, is IMO bare minimum.

Now do the math.

$50M, all by itself (ignoring other recent licensees) is better than $.125/outstanding share. Now pick a P/E multiplier. Industry average is 39 (are we "avaerage"?). But even with a P/E of 10 we should be at $1.25/share PPS, minimum. Are we undervalued? Is a share buy-back, at this time, a smart move?

Now, that was assuming we got $50M out of TX. But if that were the case, with the Fujitsu settlement amount known to the world, why all the secrecy? If I were one of the Js, and I got off for what Fujitsu paid almost a year ago with a smaller business enterprise, I'd be bragging about it, and go as far as claiming a success! But no, they obviously demanded, as a condition of settlement, TOTAL silence. What does that tell you? To me, it suggests they each paid 5-10 times what Fujitsu paid, and are emersed in shame.

JMHOs, and still another novel!

SGE