As of the beginning of the Summer, PTSC's employee/director base was as follows: (I've made a couple of assumptions with the support help)

Employees:

Rick Goerner

Paul Bibeau

Cliff Flowers

Receptionist

Executive Assistant

Additional Assistant

Directors:

Carlton Johnson

Gloria Felcyn

Helmut Falk

Nick Tredennick

Donald Schrock

Since, as I understand it, in PTSC's reporting, they account for PDS' (The MMP's) revenues and costs separately, as well as they do with SSDI/Holcom, these names I list above are essentially is the "expense" generating component of PTSC's operations that is accounted for under "selling, general and administrative" expenses on the . Of course, in addition to these "personnel", they have the additional G&A expenses of an office lease, IR firm, PR firm, Auditors etc. That being said, these estimated 11 people, plus all the other costs accounted for an expense of $7.56 MILLION in 2007!!! That's an average of $682K per "employee" (including secretaries and directors!!!)!

When you consider that PTSC in theory, could take the $25M in assets it has/had, convert what wasn't cash to cash, and just invest it in conservative investments, if it were to get a basic 7% return, that would net $1.75 MILLION, per year in interest.

Assume for a moment that instead of what they do now, the 11 employees drew more modest salaries (INCLUDING benefits) according to the below:

Employees:

Rick Goerner - $320K

Paul Bibeau - $230K

Cliff Flowers - $230K

Receptionist - $45K

Executive Assistant - $65K

Additional Assistant - $60K

Directors:

Carlton Johnson - $80K

Gloria Felcyn - $60K

Helmut Falk - $60K

Nick Tredennick - $60K

Donald Schrock - $60K

That would amount to an expense "base" of $1.216M per year. Add in another $75K for IR, another $10K for PR (none would be needed), another $150K for Auditors, and a 2500 sf office lease at $30/sf per year or $75K, and another $100K for misc expenses, and you would end up with a total expense base of $1.626 MILLION per year. Offset that by $1.75 M in interest income, and PTSC could be a net profitable company of and $124K per year RECURRING PREDICTABLE REVENUES.....without doing ANYTHING other than carrying all of these people along for the ride and reporting the income they generate through the interest the money earns.

Obviously, I've stripped this down to a bare scenario just to illustrate a point, and I do NOT advocate this approach, but my point is that in its CURRENT configuration, PTSC SHOULD HAVE POSITIVE RECURRING REVENUES, even if it didn't make another dime off of MMP or Holcom, or NuPower, etc. In reality, in the stripped down version I cite, you could eliminate 3/4's of the personnel and expenses and raise the net revnues to over $1M per year just in watching the money grow.

Even in my overly simplistic analysis, what's disturbing, and something that Goerner NEEDS to fix, IMO, is that there is NO reason for there to be $7.56 MILLION in G&A expenses for the work that the employee base and directors does and has been doing. Keep in mind, this $7.56 M doesn't include Alliacense costs, taxes, etc. that PTSC has to dish out. Perhaps the CPA's here can qualify my general statements as I know I'm OVER generalizing, but even accounting for errors I may be making, my point, IMO, holds true.

Even if you want to say that the spike to $2.25 was irrational exuberance, and instead say, PTSC was only worth a 50 cents a share at that point, considering the share price performance (a decrease of 60% even from my stipulated adjusted 50 cent level), over the last 2 years in the face of all the money PTSC has generated, PTSC is running an overly and terribly FAT operation that doesn't warrant that expense based on the performance returned by these folks.

Now, this isn't intended to bash the management and directors. Rather, it is intended to open our eyes that while PTSC is pursuing ways of growing it's business, a company like PTSC can't afford to be spending nearly $700K PER EMPLOYEE/DIRECTOR for G&A expenses. It's time for our directors to unstrap of the feed bag, stop the turnstyle of company management (hopefully RG/Bibeau/Flowers signifies that stop - though the term "interim" remains), and unilaterally downwardly adjust their compensation packages OR begin a structured and substantial ONGOING share purchase plan of shares with the bloated compensation they are receiving so as to REFLECT with their actions, what they have consistently stated with their words.

The bottom line IMO, is that while PTSC is generating significant revnues each year, and even though they're one-time payment licenses, the fact remains that year over year, PTSC has recurring revenues from MMP in general, even if it's not from the licensees themselves specifically. PTSC is CONSISTENTLY turning a profit even if it is inconsistent. Even under those positive, though not ideal, parameters, I believe MOST other companies would have an INCREASING if not flat share price. Certainly, I don't think they would have a 90% DECLINING share price (from $2.25) or 60% DECLINING share price that PTSC has.

Therefore, IMO, the culprit is the "perception" of PTSC. That perception is, IMO, of a group of directors and management whose interests have been aligned not with SHAREHOLDERS generally, but with their own specific interests and who THEY represent, and along the way, in addition to whatever they may have received from those other interests, they have themselves benefitted through DIRECT compensation from PTSC well in excess of the proportion of their efforts and qualifications. Additoinally, they've encumbered PTSC in agreements and limitations, that are negatively impact the market's visibility of PTSC, so that even the positive aspects they have enacted can't be fully presented.

While I think much of this may be changing (at least I "HOPE" so, which in and of itself is another problem - the market is left to "HOPE" with PTSC), ALL of the parties involved can and SHOULD do BETTER. They can make proactive and impactful positive steps that would change that perception and give the market a reason to believe that 11 licenses signed since the last financial report should mean something OTHER than a drop in share value from 53 cents to 21 cents.

Regardless of USPTO pending action, and pending legal action, and pending M&A action, ELEVEN LICENSES have been signed with compananies whose combined ANNUAL REVENUES exceeds $100 BILLION. PTSC will receive half of that license revenue after subtracting the costs to sign those 11 companies. PTSC has and continues to MAKE MONEY! While some here are pounded for there ROSE COLORED GLASSES VIEWS, and others are pounded for their CRITICAL VIEWS, the point is, the fate of the share price is NOT a factor of the Agora or Yahoo or Investor Village or Raging Bull boards, it is factor of the ACTIONS of Management and the BOD. Through their statements and actions, they have created a PERCEPTION of PTSC that is CONTRADICTORY and that OBFUSCATES what has been accomplished and IS being accomplished. Whether some directors stay or go, it's far past the time for them to ACT DELIBERATELY and PUBLICALLY in the interests of ALL PTSC SHAREHOLDERS PLURAL!! IMO $7.56M spent on and by these people last year, which was up from $4.1M the year before, and for which we'll find out how much it was for this year in a couple of weeks, HAS NOT provided us with the value it should have, and is in fact a HUGE reason for the declining shareprice. It provides the perception of special interest feeding at the public trough to the detriment of the majority of shareholders IMO. I call on management and the BOD to TAKE ACTION to VERY PUBLICLY correct that perception.