A few points in response to your post to Brian.

The MMP represents a valuable asset in my opinion, and depending on the outcome at the USPTO, there may still be considerable value yet to be derived from it. PDSG represents an interesting combination of products that SEEMS to fit an articulated direction that public data sharing is heading, and COULD well be a key component in future installations of large data sharing systems, at least based on the company's presentation of same. PTSC still has a decent balance sheet currently, though I think with the overhead assumed through the M&A process, along with what in both our opinions is excessive BoD compensation, that health may well be diminishing quickly.

Those are three quick reasons why I've stayed invested. Additionally, I'm not a trader, don't have the mentality for it, nor the desire to be involved in the market that way. So where as you saw fit to get out and try to get in lower, I saw fit to stay for the reasons above, among others.

As for the posts here on the board, in my opinion, it is far worse for my fellow shareholders here to stay quiet and put no pressure on our BoD and management to perform than it is to publicly and privately exhort them and criticize them, and expose their mistakes. Keep in mind, the criticisms you're commenting on are not reflex comments to one-off mistakes, but a response to three years of fairly steady decline in pps value and questionable decisions. Do you think PTSC is in a worse position today, than they were in this time 3 years ago? A bit paradoxically I admit, I personally think, even through these mistakes, that being this far through the USPTO process and having acquired several companies puts us in a better position than we were back then.

That being said, you point to the USPTO process. It seems ludicrous to me that our BoD and management, who tied our company to IP revenue, wouldn't forsee the USPTO process. It is not an exception, but rather the rule, loosely speaking. So to absolve them of the obvious consequences of the process, is to be shortsighted, IMO, and overly generous. As stewards of the company, it is their job to prepare for the worst, and hope for the best and execute accordingly, and they should have done so. In my opinion, they did not do so, at least to a standard of care I believe is required.

Rather than going in depth into the critiques of the BoD again, I'd simply point to the stated direction the company is moving, and compare the talents of the BoD members and assert they don't match. Couple that with the fact that WE (not you anymore) the shareholders and they the Directors are the only ones who can change the makeup, I'll do what I can privately, publicly, individually, and collectively as my talents and time allow to encourage a change that is more in keeping with what I believe will best protect and maximize the return on the assets and investments I led this post with. I hope those who feel similarly about the company will also.