Do you forget that Brian directly participated in the preparation of both Letters from Shareholders, via Ron, with the "energized" backing of some 50M shares? And for many of his complaints, that last letter would serve the purpose you suggest. I'll grant you we have new management. But take a look at the timing of recent events involving Brian (posting), coupled with the management change.

Look ahead. Nearly all of Brian's complaints, as posted, have to do with things that have already happened - in the past. "Effectiveness" IMO means actually participating in decisions now and into the future. How "effective" is complaining about the past? Too late. It's done.

Apparently you've already forgotten what I said in my post earlier today. Too harsh? I gave him the benefit of the doubt regarding his effectiveness, and blamed it all on the BoD/Advisors - you know, those people that I supposedly always, consistently hold blameless for anything and whole-heartedly support. That must be why I got directly involved in the preparation (well, pre-issue review) of that last Letter from Shareholders - because it was so complimentry to PTSC management.

And to correct you, the CEO said (paraphrased) "what you see is what we got and recognized in this quarter". Based on the interpretation you choose (and Brian chooses per his posts), we got nuttin' from the Js and never will get anything from the Js. If that makes perfect sense to you, fine.

BTW, doesn't it make you wonder, just a little bit, why the RIM announcement says they "agreed to terms" for a license? If you've agreed, why not execute (sign) the contract? The signing authorities would have already participated in order to achieve the agreed terms (otherwise they wouldn't be fully "agreed"). Maybe waiting for something?

Nah, that couldn't possibly be it! They just wanted to tell us about a non-deal for the heck of it. Companies can draft any terms into a contract they never intend to execute, thus it's a non-event worthy of a PR. Or maybe we hestitated to sign because we have to pay them for gracing us with the free use of our patents. Yup, either of those excuses obviously makes more sense - we either have no deal at all, or have to throw away money to get nothing. Just like we did with the Js. Right? And anyone else's conjecture is "tortured or convoluted bootstrapping rationale", period. Tell me all about being receptive to the opinions and input of others, and about being too harsh (down right insulting to a whole bunch of people).

But the effort to reach an agreement and the signing contingent on something that's yet to happen? No way! Right?

Hey, I'm not telling anyone what to believe.... IMO, they're telling us.

But I'm totally delusional.

SGE