You are ridiculous, some weeks ago you were the "Hurrey!"-Shouter, now every post by you is just negative.

But more than your constant negativisim your complete lack of knowledge/ignorance of business and how its works is amazing.

I'll try to explain it to you...lol

- Take a prudent look at PTSC's history und you'll find a lot of decisions many other companies also made around the end of the 90ies/beginning of 2000 - but 98% of these companies have gone out of business, 2% have survived

- After the bitter experience with the Ignite processor it was the only way to go the IP way

- To concentrate the patents in a bigger portfolio and hand over the licensing business to qualified hands was an excellent business decision

- To develop an umbrella strategy to broaden the sources of revenue was a "classical" business decision - IMO 99,9% of decision makers would have gone the same way

- To pay back Swartz with a huge pump&sell-game was hard for most of us (I'm one of the victims, who bought between $0,30 and $1), but remember: Swartz was the only one willing to put money into PTSC in those years, where nobody knew if they would ever get ONE Cent for their patents

- Turley was an Interim-CEO, Goerner looked good on paper, but didn't perform - thus I'm happy, how fast the BoD reacted

- As we can read through the lines of the PRs of TPL even patent experts didn't expect that long fights with the USPTO, how should the BoD know?

- By the way: WHO is PTSC? We the shareholders? The MMP? Falk, Felcyn, Johnson are the "only" ones, who have a kind of heritage with this company and I would see it as a bad sign, if one of those three members would step back NOW. If PTSC is in full force (with its patents and its subsidaries) and has a reliable track of record, maybe then it would be right to step back, but not now.

GLTA