After reading Mr. Goerner's letter, I felt like we are being prepared for a 12 round boxing match. Sure the first few rounds could be nasty but remember the fight is a long one and we have plenty of opportunity to knock them out or simply out score our opponent. I see no reason why Mr. Goerner was obligated to release the letter. We've already bottomed at $.17 so what's it matter? We achieved a new 52 week low, once again, so releasing information now is pointless. If his intention was to release a shareholder update at the end of the month then the pre-letter makes no sense. I feel like someone is standing over me rubbing my back right before they punch me. Take these quotes for example:

"Late last year the USPTO began the patent re-examination process for four key patents in the MMP™ portfolio. This is a time-consuming, detailed process that can take months, even years. The company cannot forecast the progress nor the eventual outcome."

"However, the prevailing conventional wisdom, supported by statistical data such as the recent study by Pat Choate, noted economist and student of the patent system, is that the vast majority of re-examination proceedings result in the strengthening of the patent being re-examined."

We know this already so why bring it up? Is the '148 going to need to be appealed? Is the entire process going to take longer than we hoped? Why provide information regarding an independent study of the patent system? It's almost as if their telling everyone it will work out in the end, if you give it time. How about this quote:

"I am, as we all are, frustrated and concerned about the downward direction in the company’s stock, the decline fueled by the current uncertainties affecting the Company’s key asset, the MMP™ portfolio."

Why is he frustrated or concerned if he knows what the culprits are? If good news is coming in regards to the '148 than some of his/our pending concerns will start to be answered, right? I know PTSC is maintaining the buy back program so we have to assume they feel fairly confident about the review. My question really centers around whether the letter was intended to prepare everyone for possible delays or extensions in the review process. I get a bad feeling when I see what appears to be a redundant process of issuing a shareholder letter only to follow it up with another one in 2 weeks. It just doesn't sound kosher. The damage to the S/P from the Quanta/LG ruling is already done and the USPTO re-exam is old news so, why address them now just before a regularly scheduled letter? If the man has good news for us waiting one more week wouldn't have made a difference for the S/P or our company. Unless the news in between now and then isn't what we are expecting. Just wondering out loud.