After reading and thinking about all the pieces of information we got especially after the last quarter results quite a nice picture has emerged in front of my mind’s eyes. Into this picture the parts of the mysterious revenue puzzle seem to fit perfectly, at least for me. While considering important announcements, reports and other news we got so far I will not go into any detail as I think most of the details were discussed sufficiently by more capable people than me. But let me share my combining (some thoughts are surly not new but in the context worth being repeated) of those facts we have.

In my opinion we are getting recurring revenues since the settlement in December for which many here and also members of BOD were asking constantly. Reasons for this theory:

1. Turley’s statement, “we now have tens of millions” which anybody knows. Did Turley deliberately lie when he said that?

2. The last bigger licensee with a onetime payment was Philips. They roughly paid 18 mil dollars which Lambert showed in his list. Btw. that was quite a lot if you look at the parts of the company which actually paid. The time they signed was just before the great settlement. I believe they were one of the last if not the last company at all to get some sort of early mover abatement. Why should Philips pay much money shortly before settlement if the J’s could get away with peanuts just a few days ahead? Do you think their attorneys didn’t communicate with the J’s ones? From my own experience with patent licensing I know that everything is examined extremely thoroughgoing. No company would pay even a penny if they hadn’t to. They choose as we know for sure a onetime payment and the only reason I can think of is that this was cheaper and more comfortable for them than to pay royalties.

3. The 10Q didn’t show the big money we all were looking for. Does anybody really believe that the J’s came away with a few millions after Philips paid 18 mil. at the last minute before court was closed, after an army of patent attorneys had shown validity of the patents by telling their clients to pay heavy money, after a positive Markman or after the wording of the settlement was, “all parties are pleased”? Thinking logical the money must be hidden somewhere else because it didn’t show up where and when it was supposed to do. I think “business resolution” points to usual license payments. The licensee pays some 3 or 4% of the sales price of the infringing products as long as he or she sells those products or till the date of expiry of the patents. That is just business as usual. But why then does the expected income didn’t show up in the 10Q. At this point I’m of Milestone’s opinion that the reexams have to be accomplished first. Another reason could be that the infringing products have to be ascertained first before there can be made an exact payment which is not that easy if you have a lot of them. Much easier is a onetime payment.

4. Some announcements in January had words like “chain disruptions” or similar in them. For me (I Think Deb or Dave said this before) this shows that the production of infringing hardware will be stopped if no constant payment transactions are made.

5. When Goerner joined the board he told us that his designated target was M&A and he even made his salary depending upon this aim somehow. If you look at the money PTSC has got at the moment they are not able to merge with or buy something satisfying. What makes the CEO to go after M&A if there is not enough money? What I think is he knows about recurring revenues and therefore he also knows for sure that any bank will be glad to lend a company with safe income during the next seven years some money. Do I remember right, haven’t there been some talks to a bank recently?

6. The relatively small earning in the 10Q if you look at the pure numbers seems to indicate that this was just the start of the new way of licensing. This fits in with Goerner’s statement, “…which fully reflects the financial results of all transactions announced prior to the end of January2008”. The way in which this is said for me clearly shows that there are more transactions to come after January. If the number of the J’s had been fully included he would have said, “…financial results of all licenses prior to the end of January 2008”. I guess that with each new license the amount of money will steadily grow from quarter to quarter.

Finishing my guess, I want to tell you that I consider pure pumping to be utterly different from demure weighing, which for sure can lead to optimism. Yes, I’m very optimistic but if one considers the hard facts, tries to combine, doesn’t look at the share price all the time can you tell me one reason that really makes sense to be pessimistic being invested in this stock?

I don’t like to wear rose coloured glasses because I want to see clear and through clear glasses or with good eyes which don’t need any glasses the future of this company looks nothing more than bright.

If I missed anything while being too sketchy, got anything wrong or falsely interpreted or whatever I appreciate your correcting me.

Good night my patriot fellows

Jerry