Because that whole business with the Js, and how it ended up, stinks, stinks, stinks.

I agree with this statement 100%.

In my opinion it would be material to tell the shareholder, why the J3 paid a lump sum, while Bosch, Nokia, Fujitsu, HP or others paid that much.

Compare the products of Panasonic, Toshiba and NEC and you would assume, they would have to pay more than Bosch for example.

Another issue I have is how PTSC is describing themselves, especially when they speak about the MMP (from PTSC's website):

"... a portfolio of fundamental microprocessor patents that are at the heart of a global microprocessor end-use market."

"...these patents, which were granted in 1998 and which are valid through 2015, have long been essential to the design of modern high-speed microprocessors. These allied firms are currently having tremendous success maximizing the value of this patent portfolio."

Wouldn't it be "material" to tell shareholders, that the main source of revenue has a problem (according to the lack of new licensees in the last months there seems to be an issue)?

It's obvious, that after the Q3 07/08 the number of licensees decreased dramatically, the same with the revenue coming from the MMP.

Isn't a substantial loss in revenue in the MAIN source of revenue - compared to 2006 and 2007 - material to shareholders? And shouldn't shareholders (and most of all NEW investors) get to know the reasons for the problems, which cause this decrease?

I hope, I could express my thoughts, was a long day...

GLTA