Good response.

Where we differ in this bottom line discussion is that, while I would like to see better talent and less compensation in the BoD, IMO they are not necessarily the culprits they are depected to be. Leaches perhaps, but not culprits. The leader of the company is the CEO at the time. The CEO proposes, the BoD blesses, or not. Better talent may make a better judgment of the wisdom of what's proposed - but it would seem that the attention should be more directed at who's formulating the proposals, and managing to sell them to the BoD. It is typically not the charter of the BoD to formulate proposals of actions by the company. Being a BoD member is NOT a full time job. Being CEO IS.

As I stated in a prior post, the share price action over the last few years is more about circumstances beyond the CEO/BoD control. Just what were they supposed to do about the re-exams?

You state that the company should have accurately predicted what was going to happen (i.e., re-exams). We all NOW know that this is a common ploy by infringers - part of the game. So blame the BoD and the CEO. Think about it, as I have: IF WE, the investors had been a little smarter and done a lot more DD about what frequently happens in patent infringement cases (i.e., re-exams and their probable impact), we probably would have dealt with this investment very differently. We didn't, we failed ourselves, and some now point fingers at the easy target (and can't accept any responsibility themselves).

Think further. If the re-exam cards had never been played by our adversaries, and the licenses had just kept flowing at a faster and faster clip for more and more money (like we, and the company, expected in our mutual ignorance), would any of this BS be talked about? Now, we don't know what the company would have done with the money coming in, the mere fact that the money kept flowing would have propelled the PPS to who knows where (and most would have probably sold by now with a huge profit).

Lastly, as I (and many others) have said many times before, nobody has come up with a viable approach to dealing with the BoD. Suggesting that bitching about them (or the CEO, or TPL, or Lecky) on Agora is a viable approach needs a reality check. It clearly isn't. It's been tried for how many years (how many?) to no avail. I've concluded that there probably is no viable approach. And I do believe that all the bitching, as well as the infighting among investors, is detrimental to PTSC as an investment.

JMHOs,

SGE - I now intend to go back to lurk-only mode.