While I agree re: the addition of Options (5M->10M=a bit scary), I'm a bit conflicted re: the "transparency" issue. While the transparency suggested by Emt appears to make sense, such disclosure of "predictions" is riddled with hazard, presenting undesired vulnerability.

IF RG issued a (rosey) prediction, even with accompanying Safe Harbor statements, and even if modest, and it did not come through, what position would THAT put him in? Credibility?

Now think of the things PTSC is pursuing, or a party to pursuing. The MMP....care to predict USPTO outcomes? Secure data, with a primary contemplated customer being Homeland Security Admin. - you know, those folks infamous for poor decision-making and dragging their feet. People who apparently recognize vulnerabilities, have a bottomless pit of funding available, have authority to act, but sit on their butts.

Sidebar: How about that deal to give $1.5 BILLION in aid to the Mexican Gov't (is there anyone more corrupt?) for border security when IMO that much money would be enough to complete the fence and secure the border from our side (as possible), using American resources (labor/material). Friggin' morons. Also keep in mind that every $1B spent by the USG domestically produces 40,000 American jobs.

Back on topic - I can see why there would be great hesitation to offer any predictions/significant transparency (PPS/EPS predictions). Nothing is assured. Everything IMO looks and rightfully should be real promising, but can you count on the USPTO or HSA or big business to act when they may be inept, bogged in beauracracy, or fearful of disolution?

So, it would be nice, but.....

JMHO,

SGE