Why NOW? Great question. Let's have a look at what Brian has posted, and equally importnat IMO, what he hasn't posted. Then think, and draw your own conclusions.

First read this:

http://www.agoracom.com/ir/patriot/m...

So, no money from the Js, and anyone else's opinion/thoughts are "tortured or convoluted bootstrapping rationale".

Then there's this little gem:

http://www.agoracom.com/ir/patriot/m...

"I have done my own analysis, and have inquired to "others", it is my conclusion after exhusting all possible positive options and alternatives, that I do not expect any additional J3 revenues; under any convoluted arrangement. The decision to settle is the 64,000 question, but it's likely we will never know the whole or real reason WHY."

And finally, the truly laughable post, addressing the MOU:

http://www.agoracom.com/ir/patriot/m...

"I don't know but we do have the history of the Sony deal where PTL also signed them for their own exclusive tech. So, is TPL "double dealing" at our expense ? That is something our BOD should be addressing and investigating, and should have had monitoring and protections in place for."

So, apparently it's easier for Brian to believe, based on his perception of the Sony deal (with no confirmation via FACTS), that TPL pulled some shady manuever to screw PTSC and actually think they could get away with it - ignoring the provisions of the Master Agreement and the probable legal ramifications. Easier to believe that than perhaps that there is something more to the deal than surfaced in the 10Q. What kind of thinking is THAT?

"As to my speculation about the Judge Ward monitoring issue.... Sometimes all Parties cannot agree on the exact written (non monitary) terms of a settlement, but one party is willing to put into writing an outline or text of what they will agree to. That then becomes a Memorandum of Understanding between the parties that the court might at some future time need supervision over; incase they needed to enforce some aspect of the document at some future time; and that document can be requested to be sealed."

Every time I read that my eyes do an uncontrolable roll. THINK about what he's saying:

The parties can NOT agree on exact words (note the key words in the parenthetical - "non-monetary").

One party puts words on paper, using ambiguous terms (inexact).

The parties sign the document anyway (oh, so they can agree, to inexact terms).

The document becomes a part of the court record (with its ambiguous terms).

The Court is to enforce that document, with its ambiguous terms.

LOL LOL LOL IMO

Now consider this: I posted my "delusional contingency theory", soliciting feedback. Interestingly, the person who's feedback I was most intersted was Brian's. Did he provide any? Nada, zip, zero, none.

Here's my post:

http://www.agoracom.com/ir/patriot/m...

We see Brian's apparent confusion re: the licenses in one of his other posts linked above, I believe. (Perhaps replace the word "licenses" with the word "settlement").

We see Brian's explanation of the MOU above.

Brian has been silent re: "without prejudice".

I may be mistaken, but I believe Brian was one of several posters suggesting that the CC may have been demanded by our team. I address that in my post - difficult to fathom, unless JW wants his name tarnished.

Why the company reps buying? Silence.

Here's another opportunity for Brian to respond to my conjecture - pure conjecture. "Cuz I KNOW nuttin', but I do have a brain....that functions occassionally.

Why now? Why does Brian speak NOW? And why does he say what he says? THINK. And this is our shareholders rep, who probably expects his words to us to carry a lot of weight.

I honestly hope that Brian can provide a reasonable explanation for all of this. More, I hope Brian can provide logical feedback to my conjecture.

I'll be out for most of the rest of the day. When I return, I'll see if I've been banished from the board, stoned to death, or got a responsible explanation and some feedback that makes any kind of sense.

Goodbye - perhaps for ever....

SGE