From: Investor Relations [mailto:ir@ptsc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 5:44 AM
Subject: RE: Questions Regarding 10q

Sent: Tue 4/29/2008 5:53 PM
To: Investor Relations
Cc: Rick Goerner
Subject: RE: Questions Regarding 10q

Dear Investor Relations:

Please provide answers to the questions listed below. This is my third request for clarification on these issues, yet I have received no response, not even an acknowledgement of your receipt of my query. If there is another channel through which I should address my questions, please let me know. In any case, I would appreciate thoughtful, direct and unambiguous responses to my questions. Thank you.

I’m resending the following e-mail that I sent on Tuesday in the event it has been forgotten, or never received. I’d appreciate a prompt response to the questions listed. Thank you.

In an effort to reconcile the 10q filing and the Letter to Shareholders that followed, I have some questions about some apparent contradictions to which I ask that you provide some clarification. I’ll do my best to be complete and specific in my questions, focusing on available disclosed information, and to ask questions that you can answer without concern for confidentiality agreements or other disclosure concerns. As a long term shareholder, I ask that you be as complete, specific and direct in your responses.

The recent 10q filing was for the quarter ending Feb 29, 2008. However, Mr. Goerner’s letter indicates that the 10q “fully reflects the financial results of all transactions announced prior to the end of January 2008”. These appear to be contradictory conditions, though perhaps not, depending on the revenue recognition issues involved with the February licenses. However, in trying to decipher whether that’s the case, the 10q obscures that potential explanation since under the PDS Balance sheet section of the 10q, there is no figure shown in the “License Fees Receivable” section for the nine months ending Feb 29, 2008, while for the same quarter last year, fees for licenses signed before the quarter ended but for which fees were not received until after the quarter ended were listed under “License Fees Receivable” line item. Still, I understand that there may be revenue recognition conventions that would preclude the February signings from appearing in even the receivables column if the fees had yet to be received or were not measurable prior to the filing of the 10q, or if some other revenue recognition convention were not yet met. With this understanding, I have the following questions:

1. By his comment, does Mr. Goerner mean that “all transactions announced prior to the end of January” includes the 12 licenses from and inclusive of TEAC through Psion, and specifically inclusive of the 4 license agreements made that ended the litigation with Matsushita, JVC, Toshiba and NEC, as announced in late December?

2. Have all PDS license agreements or other PTSC transactions made prior to the end of January, 2008, been announced?

3. By using the language “fully reflects the financial results”, should investors take this to mean that all the revenues attributable to these transactions has been fully recognized and reflected in the 10q, and that no other revenue from these transactions remains to be recognized in the future?

4. If the above answer is no, what then did Mr. Goerner mean by “fully reflects the financial results”, and considering the company’s publicly proclaimed pursuit of only a one-time license payment structure, how can Mr. Goerner justify what would be in this context a very misleading statement?

5. If the financial results of the licenses announced in February are not reflected in the 10q, then is this due to revenue recognition issues, or is it possible that there are no financial considerations to these transactions to reflect?

6. Since history prior to this quarter has shown that fees associated with licenses signed prior to the issuance of a 10q have always been reflected in the 10q, either in the actual financial spreadsheets or in the subsequent events section, has something fundamentally changed in the MMP licensing process that is precluding PTSC/TPL/PDS/Alliacense from being able to deliver the MMP license(s) in a timely fashion, and thus being able to recognize the revenue from those transactions? If so, what has changed?

I understand that these questions may seem pedantic. However, considering the company’s prior public proclamations of increasing license fees, its public commentary of added pressure on licensees to license in order to avoid supply chain disruptions, its stated elimination of first mover discounts, the large legal expenses the company incurred directly prior to the settlement announcement timeframe, and the 10q’s results which appear to reflect license fees for 12 licenses that are less than what Fujitsu alone paid, either the information provided by the company is unclear, or something material has changed.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated prompt and unambiguous responses.