I too respect FUT and Brian, but their posts in the recent few weeks are in my opinion "off". I think they have not come to the right conclusions on some important points. Brian seems to be concluding that S&L and Carlton Johnson are behind some sort of manipulative actions here limiting the flow of funds to PDS and eventually to the Q. Do we know that is true? Or could it be that the changeover from lump sum payments to running royalties has clouded the numbers and blown all of our huge lump sum payment expectations-including Brian's out of the water?

"Running royalties" does not necessarily mean the overall numbers are smaller. If my instincts are correct here, it could very possibly mean just the opposite! They are likely to be larger due to higher per product percentage rates more in line with industry standards. Previously we had been getting a fraction of those standard rates in the lump sums we had rec'd. (Thank you Lambert's Lunatics). Running royalties at those higher rates would mean more money, more stable quarterlies and I suspect a growing number of companies paying those higher running royalties rates. It's all good in that scenario! And what happens to the shareprice? It falls off the edge of a cliff. Of course the above CAN'T be true. Right? It's no surprise that the downdraft is feeding on itself. What if all of you thinking "something is wrong" are all WRONG? Maybe everything is better than ever here. That's my take here. Call me an optimist or an IDIOT but thatit where all of the information that has been provided takes me here.

Fut also seems to have concluded something that did not pan out in the Q and that is the issue of revenue recognition. I remember when he first stated that the method used for revenue recognition would necessarily reveal all revenues and seemed to imply that all revenues would be recognized in some way and would be evident in the Q if they were indeed a part of a licensing agreement or a part of the J's settlement. When I saw that I thought "that is a pretty bold statement. I hope he is right." I had no reason or background really to dispute that statement, but now I firmly believe he was mistaken in some aspect of his original prediction on how much we would learn from the Q. The idea that many of us would be fully informed in the Q I think came to a certain extent from his "take". Thus when the bubble of expectations burst, it burst loudly. Certainly not blaming anyone for the expectations of "more informative" info here but that did play a part in the mindset here on this board. No doubt in my mind.

The pitchforks again need to be put away here and cooler evaluations of the information that IS available need to take place. Running royalties make all the sense in the world to me. It explains everything clandestine that seems to be going on here. Please go back and read the letter from Rick Goerner. Look at the phrase "in explicit technical detail". What other conclusion could one come to for that being in that letter other than that it is a hint toward PER PRODUCT RUNNING ROYALTIES. It is entirely out of place in any other context. JMO

Regarding FUT and Brian's takes on recent events - I will probably be called on some aspect of my written accounts of the matters at hand. I am obviously paraphrasing here but you get the gist.