I can hold back no longer (a novel is forthcoming), and must ask "Why all this controversy about being called a 'Patent Troll'?". Now, I'll again suggest that IMO JT has no "evil intent" in using this term to attract an audience. But what's wrong with being called a Patent Troll? Especially if the connotation behind that term largely "fits".

Fits? Yes, to a large degree IMO. Did PTSC develop the patents of the MMP? No, they acquired the rights to these patents via the acquisition on Nano. Did PTSC ever use the technology themselves? No, the ShBoom, Ignite and Inflame (per my understanding) don't use this tech at all. The name actually fits pretty squarely IMO, though when these patent rights were originally acquired, being a "patent troll" clearly was not their intent. Matters not.

IMO, people (here especially) are offended for no apparent reason - other than the fact that some entities (our adversaries) try to use the term to defame.

Most of my family/friends/acquaintances know that I'm pretty focused on investing in the stock market - it's my current "bread and butter" (investing most of my bread with the hope of not losing my butter). They see the market swings (especially recently) and frequently ask if I'm doing okay. And I advise that the stocks I'm invested in aren't really affected by the things that impact the overall market. Bewildered, they ask how I select investment candidates.

For about the last ten years, my investment philosophy has been to find very small, relatively unknown companies with a great, untapped patent portfolio. I don't care how they got it, or if they are actually using it in any products they may offer. That's not the point. I'm looking for a stake in the Comstock Mine. And, as a second parrellel to the Mark Twain investment philosophy, I have no problem with the idea of "put all you eggs in one basket, then watch the basket". I know as much as I can about the companies in which I invest on an ongoing basis in order to mitigate the inherent risk. That's why I'm here. IMO, there's great risk in any (stock) investment and the past is a very unreliable indicator of future performance potential. I want to go for the gusto - I'm not happy with a CD level of return.

The funny thing is that virtually every time I tell someone my investment approach, they appear to think it's pretty smart (though I don't know if they walk away laughing hysterically). They say they only wish they had the time to invest in "watching that basket".

Patent Troll? Exactly what I'm looking for!

But, golly gee, these companies just buy an asset and make tons of money with it, with very little relative risk. Right on! And they try to take money from other companies that are blatantly stealing the use of that asset. Justice!

If those other companies were so friggin' smart, THEY would have bought that asset when it was available. It's existance was in the public domain, and they almost had to have stumbled upon it/them when doing patent searches, etc., toward applying for their own patents (a la ARM). They failed to act, and now it's sour grapes time. Too darn bad. As John Wayne once said "life is tough - it's tougher if you're stupid".

The truly "smart" companies over the last hundred and fifty years were those that bought up as much of the infrastructure/supply chain/basic tech necessary to enable production of their product. Independence, elimination of risk. So now we're supposed to feel sorry for organizations that failed in this regard? And further failed by not recognizing the fact that those underlying, supportive assets could be leveraged to great advantage? To me, their defaming "patent troll" language is really highlighting THEIR FAILURES.

Having said all that, would there still be such angst against JT if the above was the theme of his presentation. "We confess - we're way smarter than the big boys, the thieves".

And what's more American than routing for the underdog? The little guy battling the big, evil guy. Watch any action movie - that you pay to see - what's it about? It's the basic theme of every western, war movie, James Bond, Jason Bourne, Charles Bronson, etc., etc. Heck, you can throw in The Adventures of Robin Hood, The Wizard of Oz, and Gone With The Wind!

And, in business - any business, what's more beautiful than being the sole source for a needed/desired commodity? Controling a monopoly.

Patent Troll? I can live with that. All that needs to happen is for the masses to THINK it through. Who's the smart entity in this picture? The entity that bought the asset, or the one that tried to steal it and got caught - and should have known they'd get caught? Now, which entity is the better investment?

So I suppose my hope is that JT is witty enough to follow this line of discussion - depiction of the true situation. To me, it's obvious. But Will Rogers isn't around any more, and someone needs to point this stuff out.

Now, what's the likelihood of JT following this path? Does he retain any financial interest in PTSC? Would this line of discussion make him look smart in investing some time with PTSC, or stupid?

Think.

JMHO,

SGE