i can believe that PTSC could be that far out of the loop.

JT was already out of favor with TPL (IMO) based on the cancellation of the PR campaign that the "quipster" was about to embark. JT was not a seasoned CEO, he was a rookie CEO and IMO did not choose his words wisely when representing PTSC. PTSC has demonstrated (IMO) by the fact that since they merged that patent with TPL that they have actually been doing very little, if anything, regarding growing the company (ex: looking for a merger/acq....i personally believe this was all just nothing more than talk/shareholder appeasement....they really had no qualified people on the BOD that could really evaluate a candidate...and i include JT in this camp).

PTSC signed off on the Sony deal. For the benefit of PTSC? or because TPL asked/told them to? IMO, because TPL requested it. Our BOD, pre RG, was a "do nothing" BOD that was content with what "they" were getting in compensation and left all other decisions regarding our patent to the more qualifed patent prosecuting group, TPL.

if there is anything more to the J3 settlement (which i have no idea anymore) would TPL risk the terms of the settlement on disclosing the contents to TPL's silent partner (the BOD)? IMO...i wouldn't. just look at what the BOD had been doing dumping the treasury over to their debt financer. this alone would have been a big signal to TPL that PTSC's BOD were just seat warmers sucking down salaries and options at the expense of the share holder. i am sure TPL is very aware of CJ and his relationship/ties to S&L. why risk it and why turn over such information to a BOD that had no real goals or plans beyond collecting their cut of the revenues?

all just my opinion......and our current share price, lack of volume, and decreasing licensing activity of late is so contrary to what i had hoped after we settled with the J's.

glta....RG...clean our house and turn this puppy around!

teremoto