according to the new PDSG-website something should have happened yesterday:

"www.PDSG.com’s official launch will be June 1, 2009."

Does the company think this is professional? Announcing and FULFILLING the launch of a website is much easier than the launch of a new software - but Patriot/PDSG proves they aren't even able to deliver the simple task! And this company is speaking about getting ready for the NASDAQ or something similar?

More an more I'm convinced one of the main jobs of Mr. Goerner is to suppress every positive action in order to prevent new investors to invest in PTSC.

There are several things with PTSC from 2005 until today which are at least very strange or frankly spoken legally questionable (and if PTSC was a german company I would have choosen all the legal possibilities to "communicate" with the company).

Thus I'd like to ask you and the managment two simple questions:

- Is Patriot Scientific a typical us-american OTC-company? (You know the negatives about the OTC and the companies which are staying there?)

- Do I have to expect a typical OTC behaviour, which solely concentrates on creating financial benefits for the management and its associates and misleading its shareholders?

If this company is doing serious business with serious customers (what I supposed PTSC did since three years and intends to incease with organisations like the US government et al.: "customers who are running mission-critical organizations in Justice, Public Safety, Defense and Healthcare") wouldn't it be logical then to communicate seriously?

After 15 months of time at PTSC Mr. Goerner failed to create

- shareholder value

- shareholder trust

- awareness in the market

- seriousness

- professionalism

Additionally: Don't you think the company should speak about its main source of income, the MMP, while one of the inventors, Charles Moore, seems to have tremendous trouble with your licensing partner, obviously effecting the licensing efforts and therefore the stream of money which comes to PTSC?

Wouldn't a public company be obliged to speak abut threats regarding its main revenue source?