WOW! lol

For starters, you should probably go back and refresh your memory by reading my post history, because I offered SEVERAL posts rebutting your theories.

Secondly, PTSC is NOT dealing with national security issues.

Thirdly, RG gaves us this, among MANY other comments about this issue:

"I will not, in the limited context of this letter, recount all the information contained in our April 9, 2008 earnings release, which fully reflects the financial results of all transactions announced prior to the end of January 2008. "

Fourthly, there is NO indication of ANY contingencies regarding these licenses, or that there is ANY differentiation between these licenses and the other 46 or so licenses signed in ANY SEC filing or other Company Communication or Public Documents.

Lastly, with all due respect, you come out here blasting away at me with my comment about this "speculation" amounting to a questioning of RG's credibility. Well, in light of ALL of the evidence that speaks SPECIFICALLY to the issue there is nothing more coming, some of that evidence coming DIRECTLY from RG, I reiterate my comment that to speculate otherwise is to question his credibility in a way. And what do you offer in support of your "argument", that there is an MOU, the contents of which YOU HAVE NO IDEA, and that's the basis of your argument. Well in keeping with your argument, perhaps it was the agreeement to the firing of Jim Turley and the appointment of Rick Goerner was what was contained in that MOU. Or perhaps it was the agreement to the appointment of Don Schrock that was in the MOU. Or perhaps it was the agreement to use Bic Pens to sign the settlement documents. Or perhaps it was the agreement to outline all the terms of the settlements confidentiality with respect to what each entity learned about the others through all of the discovery that went into the preparation for trial that was contained in the MOU. Obviously there are ENDLESS possibilities that one can attribute to being contained in the MOU, but that doesn't make them true. In fact I'd offer that all of these othere possibilities that I outline are MORE LIKELY to be contained in the MOU than the idea that there is more money coming from the J3 since more money coming from the J3 is the ONLY thing that the company has made an efffort to dispel!

I'm going to leave this with you where I left it with optymystic. We'll just have to agree to disagree.