I thought it would be interesting to look at EB's top 100 list from 2006, and compare it to the licenses signed to date. The historical ratio of licenses signed to date amounts to $1 in license fee paid to $2345 in annual revenue earned. This is predicated on all one-ime license fees, and the assumption that the most recent 10q includes ONLY licenses through Jan 08, even though this last part is potentially incorrect based on Hawk's response to billwilkie.

The top 100 earned 1.971 TRILLION - that's right TRILLION!!! - dollars in 2006. When you eliminate the ones we've already signed, that number drops to $1.464 TRILLION. At $1/$2345 or even the $1/$2470 if all of the February licenses WERE included in the 10q, that would amount to the following potential license fees:

at $1/$2345 - $1,464 Trillion in annual revenue would equate to $624.3M in license fees based on annual revenue.

at $1/$2470 - $1,464 Trillion in annual revenue would equate to $592.7M in license fees based on annual revenue.

Furthermore, while the historical average ratios I cite are based on TOTAL annual revenues of companies, the $1.464 Trillion is strictly ELECTRONICS revenues of those compnanies, so other revenues are not included. In theory, that would make the ratio even better in PDS' favor. Arguments can be made that not all of these companies infringe (though I think that's a hard argument to make) or that the level of infringement isn't as heavy from one company to the next (certainly a plausible argument) so assume that the current ratios should be discounted by 25% to account for that inconsistent level of infringement. Still, that amounts to $468.2M or $444.5M respectively to the above numbers left to collect from the remaining companies.

Assuming a consistent $33M/$243M (Expenses/Fees Collected) ratio that we've had over the first 40 or so licenses, that would leave $404.6M or $384.2M in NET PROFITS to PDS that would be split between PTSC & TPL. Assuming that these top 100 are the first of the targeted companies on notice, we can assume that these would be the first to be signed as well, so let's assume that they are the focus over the next 3 fiscal years. If we assume that they are only able to sign 75% of these companies due to whatever various reasons, that would still leave $303.5M to $288.2M to split. Divide that evenly over the next 3 years, and you have PTSC annual revenues from MMP of $51M to $48M from these top tier companies.

$50M per year minus 35% in taxes leaves $32.5M in PROFIT which based on 391M shares oustanding and a P/E of 8.17 currently shown on Yahoo results in a price of $0.68 share. While this share price admittedly is low to what we all want/expect, it shows the range that the current numbers and a little minimum guidance from the company should support at a MINIMUM. I think Goerner & the BOD, have a responsibility to increase the level of transparency and the exposure of PTSC in a way that some of this shareprice value is unlocked. Afterall, THEY are the ones that have publicly stated the share price is undervalued, yet THEY are the ones who do nothing to explain on what basis they believe this. Furthermore, as shown by Hawks response to billwilkie, in fact they work to hide the information that would support a higher share price.