My current view of the situation:

1. It was NOT expected after the words of Pohl (saying, they were looking for a person OUTSIDE PTSC, if I remember correctly), that Turley took over as CEO in June 2007.

2. From the outside it seemed, Turley had a difficult time from June to December  because of the hard negotiations with the J3 - difficult, because he couldn't communicate as he might have wanted to.

3. But maybe this was NOT Turleys job - maybe his only job was to find interesting companies for a M&A and maybe he was not as successful as he and the BoD expected him to be.

4. So the question remains: Did he step back, because he was ready and did his job - or did he step back, because he didn't get ready in the given time-frame?

5. The wording of "his" pr is weird, unusual and unprofessionell from a communications point of view - it seems to be a hint, that he could not act as he wanted to in the short time of eight/nine months.

6. His complete exit from PTSC additionally as a member of the BoD seems to strengthen the assumption, that both sides were not happy anymore with each other and wanted a clear cut.

7. He joined the BoD in February 2006, two years later he leaves - maybe we have to look at this time frame, maybe he had a clear order to prepare M&A activities starting from Feb 2006 and not as we meant from June 2007?

8. Rick Goerner has very good credentials, comes from outside and seems to be well connected in the "real" industry.

9. It's interesting/strange, he took this job as an Interim CEO saying he will "lead the company through the current management transition" - I didn't know, we were in the phase of a "management transition"...

10. Does this mean, PTSC is on its way to a completely NEW company, which is IMO the only possibility to create new shareholder trust and bring the company in areas, we all are hoping?

11. Or does "management transition" mean something "bad" (like a buyout through TPL), how some people here indicate?

12. Though I don't know more than anyone of you and I agree, we can't trust, what they are saying, the next phrase by RG clearly states, that he wants "to help position the next stage of growth for Patriot".

If he was the one to lead a buyout, this phrase would be misleading and something to hand over to the SEC. Thus I tend more to the assumption, Goerner's job is a more positive one (what we see as positive).

13. There are two further sentences I find very interesting:

"Goerner has extensive experience as an operating manager"

"Goerner has recently been involved in the development of other early stage technology companies"

There is NO doubt, that Patriot is exactly this: an "early stage technology company", because they have to create a complete new business on the base of their patents. And there is NO doubt, that none of Patriot's employees has experience with normal business operations - and neither had Turley! 

Thus this could be a hint, that PTSC is getting real, developing from a "theory based" IP company to a product company with stronge patents in the background.

Have a great sunday!