Does everybody understand that the nature of the settlement cannot be disclosed?  If everyone embraces that FACT then there would not be all of this ill-advised accusatory rhetoric.  Simple as that.  It cannot be disclosed.  As for guidance there was a good post on that recently that this is being done less and less recently because of just the kinds of misinterpretations and hyperextended expectations that are found on this board.  What if PTSC had provided guidance of say a "light" Q prior to April 9th. We probably would have seen this same downdraft only at the time of the guidance rather than April 9th.  What's the difference?  Also - guidance might be provided in those instances and with those business models where there are multiple revenue streams at work.  That is simply not the case with PTSC at least at this point in time.  I wouldn't expect guidance anytime soon for this reason.  Guidance might be more prevalent in those more established companies that would be better able to bury the nature of a large settlement into a larger context of contracts and deals.  If PTSC came out with guidance it would be readily apparent and thus obvious that the large numbers associated with the guidance were attributable to the settlement thus violating the intent of the NDA.

Also-Brian and FUT are expressing opinions about their assessments of the current situation.  I respect both opinions and their expertise in their respective fields but I think both are simply "off" over the past few days on their interpretations of the sparse info that we have from which we can draw conclusions about our investment here.  They are presumably privy to no more information than we are and thus capable of the same sorts of misinterpretations that many among us are making here.  Don't jump to the conclusion that what Brian or FUT or anyone else here says are FACTS  

JMO  & Back to lurking