Fatwollit

Opty, understand what you're saying but, again, if all we're doing is expanding on the relationship as it exists now, what's the point? It's hardly been a runaway success, has it? Just look at the SP, look at the degree of transparency.

You say "it was mentioned that TPL was instrumental in finding the IP possibilities PTSC was looking at." I don't recall reading that anywhere but, assuming for the sake of argument that that's the case, just what have our guys been doing all this time? I thought they were taken on to look for new revenue sources, not TPL.

Your right, I guess I misread the interview. RG stating that licensing would be through TPL - as opposed to finding IP through TPL. But it makes no matter. I'm sure TPL would like PTSC to go that route, and I wouldn't doubt they are looking at IP for their own benefit as well.

As far as why PTSC should consider IP, I guess, I'm resigned to believing that a merger with TPL is in the cards once there is some certainty about the MMP. TPL can probably survive the worst. PTSC probably can not. And a merged company would be questionable w/o the MMP. But, if we assume that there will at least be some portion of MMP to continue with, and a merger with TPL or Intellasys, is likely in the cards, then continuing with the present model to get the most out of the infrastrusture that has been built would make sense. I think you agree, it makes no sense to look at IP as a PTSC stand alone. So, the fact that they are looking at IP tells us what? Opty