I'm not intending to argue with you as to the gist of your point, as obviously the overall market conditions have been detrimental to RG's abiility to return value to the shareholders, but it is clearly something far beyod that that has impacted PTSC.

One can argue pretty effectively IMO, that with no debt, decent cash in the bank, profitabilty through it's MMP revenues, and with an eye toward aquisitions, PTSC was in a MUCH BETTER position than the overall market when he took over, and that if anything, the downturn in the market should have HELPED him find an aquisition target at a bargain, and perhaps one with profitability already achieved, or shortly around the corner (Crossflo MAY fit that bill, we'll soon see).

When RG took over, the DOW was at 12582. Since then, it dropped as low as 6440, or a drop of 49%. Since, it's recovered over 31% from it's lows, and has gotten back to nearly 67% of it's value when he took over.

In contrast, PTSC was at .40 when RG took over. It dropped an astounding 80% of its value to a low of .08 and has since recovered over 57% from it's lows to get to its current level, BUT it is still only gotten back to 32% of its value when he took over.

I would argue that the uncertainty that surrounds the USPTO process is obvioulsy the number one impactor. HOWEVER, and this is a BIG HOWEVER. The market WANTS and CRAVES transparency and predictability. It rewards those companies that can provide it. PTSC has REFUSEDE to provide transparency and CAN'T provide predictability with regard to its number one revenue source, the MMP, and therefore it gets punished because of that.

When you add on that the largest shareholder historically (may or may not be true anymore) has an in on the BOD that is in his employ, and you add the perception of an investment environment that is tilted away from NEW investors. Factor in that that shareholder received dividends on warrant shares, not just his actual holdings, and it's clear that the perception is VALID. Factor in that the current BOD seemingly refuses to challenge the imbalance in representation on the PDS Management committee, and has allowed their private partner to run roughshod over them in dictating the terms of what is SUPPOSED to be a 50/50 partnership, and the perception is strongly reinforced. Add in to that the fact that while the complaints abound about Johnson, Falk and Felcyn, the truth is that Tredennick and Schrock have been visibly absent from any real impact it seems, and that Tredennick seems more aligned with TPL than with PTSC, and our BOD is suspect all around IMO and further reinforces the questionability of new investors wanting to buy into PTSC. One can go on and on, but I think this makes the point.

Until these issues are overcome either through strong communications and transparency that either proves the misconceptions wrong, or reinforces to the investment community that they WILL OVERCOME these obstacles, or through some monumental news event that shows that they HAVE overcome them, the shareprice will continue to suffer, IMO. If RG wanted this job as it appears he did, he should have been prepared to do what it took to overcome these issues, and done so publicly such as forcing a shake up of the BOD, buying out Swartz, pushing back at TPL, etc. Or if these issues are invalid, as the BOD's and RG's pronouncements that the pps IS undervalued suggest, he should have shown an interest in going after the reasons why the pps is undervalued, and shed light on them in a very public way as presumably that to say that it implies there are forces at work INTENTIONALLY keeping the price down.

Instead, RG has come in and pursued a business plan that will move PTSC to an operating company, presumbably a profitable one. That's commendable, don't get me wrong. I think he's done so professionally, and with the appearance of experience and skill in doing so. However, he has done so almost myopically by focussing almost solely on the business plan, and ignoring anything to do with improving the MMP, or BOD issues. In my opinion, that narrow focus serves to reinforce the perception that PTSC is NOT a good investment for new investors, and WON'T be until and IF RG is able to prove results through what appears to be his only focus, and his only purvue of power within the company. He's coming across as only half a CEO, IMO.

In my opinion, these reasons, NOT the overall market and economic conditions are the reasons for PTSC's pps langushing in the low teens. There are plenty of companies that have excelled through these current market conditions, who don't have the basic financial strength that PTSC has/had, but that have articulated their story MUCH better, and have allowed the investment community enough insight and transparency to energize and convince them that it is worth buying their shares. On the other hand, RG and this BOD has created a picture that it's a crapshoot and you may or may not make money, we can't really tell you anything more.