Though I earlier complimented your response, I do have to point out that, though PTSC publicly acknowledged the TX settlements as a Material Event, they also declared that the result$ of those settlements were "not material" (presumeanly because licensing the MMP for consideration is "business as usual"). Thus, this aspect of your argument does fall apart.

Your response was basically the reasoning behind the prohibitions against "insider trading" by cognizant company representatives. I again submit that a company, as a corporate entity, ALWAYS has absolute access to insider information. Yet they are permitted to trade with minor prohibitions re: timing of trades and permissible quantities. Thus, I believe PTSC should be capable of trading (buying) as long as their intent to do so is announced. The latter is important, in that once a corp announces its intent, the signal has been given, and those that ignore it do so at their peril IMO.

Maybe you're thinking that the TX licenses may be considered "material" at a later date (4/9/08). Though difficult to fathom, this, IMO, would also "not hold water" because any business that invests in themselves (for a reason) do so with an expectation that company initiatives will succeed, generating a profit on that investment. An ongoing initiative may bear fruit that is recognized at a later date. Would that success then render the initiation of that initiative a "material event" even though it may have been within the confines of "business as usual"? At bit of a poser....

If we see a hit to our PPS tomorrow in concert with the anticipated hit to the entire market, I hope to see PTSC announce buy-backs, as the opportunity may never be better. And, of course, I'd really like to see PTSC pursue buy-backs as I have described - and beyond.

And this would be great for all Longs, IM very strong O.

SGE