I've listened to the CC, and watched the presentation below. I find the FSX presentation quite well done, and am impressed with it, though with the qualifiactions listed below, realize it is a marketing event, and in such must be taken with a grain of salt, and listened to with a qualifying and critical ear. Nonetheless, I think it is a must watch for all investors.

FSX Conference Presentation Video Feb 09

That being said, while I understand the complaints voiced recently on this board, and appreciate the discussions that have ensued, and share the sentiment in large part, personally, my biggest issue with PTSC and RG, and realistically, as a retail investor, my ONLY issue, is the inconsisent, and often conflicting communication regarding the MMP activities.

For the last 3 years, we've heard in official company press releases that license fees were being increased, but in reality we find them being decreased. We've hear in official company press releases blatant implications that licensing activities are picking up, when in fact, it has decreased. We've heard in official press releases that the company is confident about the USPTO Re-Exam process, yet we find that the net effect is that the USPTO continues to react negatively in every ruling/communication. We've heard in official company documentation, that the management committee of PDS would have ONE TPL representative, ONE PTSC representative, and ONE INDEPENDENT Representative agreeable to both companies, but we find that the management commnittee actually has TWO TPL representatives. Essentially, the lesson we have learned through the years as PTSC investors, is we can't believe what we hear in large part.

At the heart of Reg FD is the following:

"We believe that the practice of selective disclosure leads to a loss of investor confidence in the integrity of our capital markets. Investors who see a security's price change dramatically and only later are given access to the information responsible for that move rightly question whether they are on a level playing field with market insiders."

This seems to define PTSC's communication regarding the MMP to a tee in my opinion. The continuation of Carlton Johnson, in light of his close professional relationship with, according to Cliff Flowers, "a regular investor" like Eric Swartz, at best has the appearance of impropriety, and at worst, much worse. Historical experience in the market trading of PTSC, and in the reported positions of Swartz, seems to support the worst assumptions, not the best.

Furthermore, Reg FD states:

"Information is material if "there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable shareholder would consider it important" in making an investment decision."

Considering that the company did NOT inform us right away about the German Patent Decision, about the BARCO litigation, about the Moore/TPL dispute, to mention a few, seems to directly contradict this standard of required disclosure.

All of this being said, I agree that RG and CF are doing their best to defend the company and keep shareholders focussed on the M&A strategy and the progress being made, and simply to convince us to expect that the MMP will provide the funding moving forward, albeit on a continuingly inconsistent basis. I suspect that they could well be right, but it is not possible to accept their commentary without seriously questioning it when they make these positive statements about the not expecting to have to fund PDS further, or that MMP will continue to provide income, or that they're not looking to raise more money as RG does in the video link above. While their delivery is very professional, and trust-inducing, the history of PTSC is paved with simliar statements that have proven to be false as cited above. The BURDEN of proof is on THEM, not on us as investors.

In a sense, I find RG VERY professional and credible, but at the same time, he has presented the infamous "Pie Chart" of PTSC revenues that shows 100% MMP currently, and only 1/3 MMP provided revenues in the future. When taken in context of his presentation, it can only be interpreted to mean that he expects to grow PTSC non-MMP revenues substantially while CONTINUING to generate MMP revenues at near historical levels. HOWEVER, and to date under his tenure this seems to be the trend, the pie chart can also be seen as symbolizing a significant REDUCTION in MMP revenues to the point where the overall revenue trend may well be declining or at best holding steady, and MMP revenues simply declining by 2/3. This kind of AMBIGUOUS presentation, while technically may be considered honest, in spirit seems DISHONEST if not clarified in proper context and with better communication as to the intent of the underlying message.

Investors can, as this board has done regarding the pie chart, slice it/interpret it many ways. RG and CF, in my opinion, and in the spirit of Reg FD, should be held to a standard that leaves this message UNambiguous as to its intent. In doing so, we as investors, CAN measure progress realistically, and know whether the plan is succeeding or failing. I realize that just because he should communicate it more clearly, it doesn't mean that it WILL happen as presented, but that's the whole point of PROPER DISCLOSURE, it is the only means by which we can measure the companies progress, and make our investment decisions accordingly, based on the proper information.

It is from THIS perspective, that I agree with the complaints and criticisms. I'm not, nor do I think are the others who have promoted some level shareholder activism, interested in dictating to the company HOW to do things (unless they are doing things NOT in the interstes of ALL shareholders, of course), but I'm interested in knowing WHAT the company is doing, especially when it comes to it's NUMBER ONE revenue source so that I can make my decisions on the proper foundation.

All in all, I think RG and CF et al have done an excellent job with positioning the company through the M&A activities, and in communcating these activities, and in many ways, I think RG has approached his job as focussing on the things he CAN control, and not on those he can't. As a manager of a DIVISION, that may be an acceptable paradigm. However, the MMP Licensing effort is just as much and more a part of PTSC's present, and if we beleive RG & CF, it's FUTURE, as the M&A activities, so it is not acceptable for him NOT to approach that part of the company business with the same level of disclosure. The law REQUIRES it. I hope he will do so, and in that respect, I continue to communciate with the company voicing my concern, and call on all shareholders to do so as well.