I need to correct, or at least qualify, my earlier posts regarding the issue of number of licenses signed to date. Rather than specify the corrections, please see the following e-mail that I sent to Hawk, Turley & Flowers, requesting clarification as it summarizes why I think there remains confusion on this issue:

Gentlemen, To follow up on my earlier e-mail of today, there seems to be more contradiction of information from PTSC regarding licenses to date than I included therein. From the PR issued to announce the Alpine Electronics license, it was stated that Alpine represented the 29th license to that date, but it referenced only these 27 preceding licenses:

1. AMD
2. Intel
3. Hewlett Packard
4. Casio
5. Fujitsu
6. Sony
7. Nikon
8. Seiko Epson
9. Pentax
10. Olympus
11. Kenwood
12. Agilent
13. Lexmark
14. Schneider Electric
15. NEC Corporation
16. Funai Electric
17. SanDisk
18. Sharp Corporation
19. Nokia
20. Bull
21. LEGO
22. DMP Electronics
23. Denso Wave
24. Philips
25. TEAC
26. Daewoo Electronics
27. Lite-On IT

Based on this list, Alpine should have been the 28th license signed. However, the list omits WMS Gaming signed shortly before Alpine, and APC signed earlier in the year. Including those 2 would make Alpine the 30th license, not the 29th. Since APC was a duplicate license as the company that acquired APC (Schneider Electric was already a licensee), perhaps PTSC was not counting APC as a separate license and thus counted Alpine as the 29th license at that point.

Since the time Alpine was signed, the following licenses have been announced:

1. Toshiba
2. Matsushita
3. JVC (as an affiliate of Matsushita not sure if it should be counted separately or not but was specifically mentioned in the PR on the settlements)
4. NEC Electronics America
5. Verigy
6. Humax
7. Psion
8. Tokyo Electron
9. Direct TV
10. Mattel

So if indeed JVC counts as a separate license, with Alpine being stated as being the 29th, Mattel in turn should be the 39th, not the 40th. If APC is being counted as a separate license, meaning Alpine was supposed to be the 30th license, then why are such simple errors being included in the PR’s. Furthering the confusion is the comment in the recent letter to the shareholders that I cited in my earlier e-mail that states that through the end of 2007, there were 34 licenses signed. Taking that into account, would suggest that either JVC or APC was being left out of the mix as with Alpine being number 29 as per the PR, Toshiba, Matsushita, JVC, NEC Electronics America, and Verigy would make the 34 licenses. If that statement about 34 licenses was in fact correct, then since the end of 2007, 5 additional licenses have been announced, meaning again that Mattel should be the 39th, not the 40th.

So, which of these should we consider as accurate?

• a) Alpine as the 29th license as stated in the PR meaning Mattel is the 39th, or
• b) should we accept as communicated that the end of 2007 marked that 34 licenses had been sold, which again would make Mattel the 39th, or
• c) should we assume that today’s PR is correct with Mattel being the 40th, and assume that at least two previous PR’s have been incorrect
  

With this kind of inconsistent and apparently incorrect information being communicated at different times, it becomes very difficult to know what to accept from the company as accurate. To drive that point home, was the company’s comment that “Patriot is clean as a whistle” in the recent letter to the shareholders really intended to convey that the company books and policies are squeaky clean, or could it mean that perhaps the person using that whistle might have eaten a bunch of Oreo’s just prior to whistling, so the term clean is relative at best and open to further interpretation depending on the next PR?

I don’t think keeping track of the number of licenses signed should be such a difficult task, nor should it be hard to represent to the public in a consistent fashion. Can you please clarify for me and for the investing public in general (through a follow up PR measure) which versions of these facts are intended. This is not the first time unclear or questionable (at best) communications have been issued by PTSC. Considering the plethora of good developments over the last 18 to 24 months, it seems clear that the quality of communication from the company is not adequate in conveying the substance and the impact of those developments. Considering such simple tasks as keeping the number of licenses straight seemingly has been difficult for the company, is it no wonder that there appears to be little market confidence that the other things the company management has said should be taken as accurate rather than misleading?

There are many of us investors out here that are pleased with the apparent positive substance of what has happened at PTSC over the last few years. Please don’t detract from those accomplishments by continuing to make simple errors and misleading statements in your press releases.