I couldn't resist to post again, though I tried to put myself in lurking mode, but some things are getting ridiculous here, thus I HAVE TO interrupt my sports today:

The ARS:

Though I have to admit, the first negative I recognized in the 10Q were the ARS, after researching, how they work and especially after these two sentences (one from the filing, the other from RG's letter) show, that the ARS are not necessarily a problem (nevertheless the way it CAN be seen and is seen by most of the people here is negative):

- "We have the intent and the ability to hold these investments until the anticipated recovery period which we believe will be less than twelve months."

- "My objective is to close our first M&A transaction before calendar year-end."

If they can receive the money as believed, the end of year will be exactly the time, they need it. And PLEASE READ the excellent post from Sedley, where he explains how an ARS can be for our benefit (http://agoracom.com/ir/patriot/messa...

The dividend:

I'm not an english native speaking person, but even I could understand (first and foremost in the context!), that because of the M&A being the first priority, dividends will "continue to hold" means: there will be NO divies in the next time.

Why is it so difficult to understand this phrase in the way it is said = there will be no dividends in the next time?

- "As a result, Patriot will continue to hold further dividend distributions, for the near term, and evaluate their applicability in future quarters."

The relevance of the MMP:

As some here were writing, they thinkg the company somehow minimized the relevance of the MMP for future activities. This is real wild stuff taken the reality of more than 40 licenses recently sold, and one careful look at the letter should have proofed otherwise:

- "We continue to license new customers, as evidenced by new licenses closed in recent months."

- "Selective expansion of our IP portfolio, acquiring new IP that builds on our existing IP portfolio."

Though the company has to be blamed for playing this cruel (and maybe false) game with the retail shareholders, I'm of the strong opinion, that the biggest problem today are the expectations and thus the sentiments of the shareholders.

I know, you might tell me, that the company did support this expectations, but from my understanding of this whole situation, no wrong statements have been made so far - only statements, which could have been seen and discussed in at least two directions.

I don't want to defend the company, I'm now at 60% loss with my investment in PTSC (which btw is way too big in terms of reason), but it is in no way helpful, if the only worldwide dicussion board is behaving like a bunch of crazy chickens, who have lost their heads...lol

For example it would be more worth discussing IMO, if the public announcements in the last 26 months violated any SEC rules, because they deceived the shareholders intentionally.

IF this was the case and was confirmed by an experienced lawyer, THEN I would support an prudent action. But I doubt, that the BoD (with lawyers and surrounded by lawyers) did something, which was against the laws (I DON'T SPEAK ABOUT ETHICAL RULES!!!).

I'm still confident, that this whole story is about a huge amount of money and therefore they don't play it soft and lovely, but straight and hard.

Enjoy your sunday!