Wow, what a post...

With more than 80% down I should be one of those to give you a thumbs up, but I didn't because you confuse cause and effect and above all responsiblities. Let's make it simple:

Who is leading a company? The management = CEO, CFO, CTO et al.

Who is installing and controlling the management? The BoD.

The BoD decides who takes the lead for a company and from time to time they demand results. If these results are negative they might give the management another chance or they fire those who are reponsible. The BoD then has to search for a replacement of the vacant positions and once they find a new manager they think could achieve their goals the games starts all over again. Therefore the first one responsible for the results is the management NOT the BoD. Of course if the BoD fails repeatedly to find the right management it's the BoD which is the problem - but were they really incompetent so far?

Let's look at PTSC, its core product, its BoD and its management:

- With Intellectual Property as its core product PTSC is acting in one of the most difficult business areas as we can/must witness since more than three years: First you have to convince the companies, then you have to convince the PTO and maybe a jury and in the end you have again to convince the companies there is no other exit than to pay. We all were expecting a much faster payback from the MMP but it's obvious the infringing companies are fighting with all their weapons to avoid paying. The result is hurting and threatening the existence of PTSC - my guess is none at PTSC and TPL did expect such a fierce fight for the patents (as we can guess from the Moore blog).

- Pohl was the one who made the TPL deal, IMHO the best move to share costs of the very hard and unpredictable IP business - good decision to put an attorney at the top when the main business of a CEO is about contracts.

- Turley was an attempt while the patents were under investigation - my guess it was a nice try because of sympathy for Turley (and remember how he was welcomed as a member of the BoD in 2006?!).

- Goerner also was overwhelmingly welcomed by this messaging board because of his credentials. If you take a look at my posts regarding Goerner you'll always find some scepticism in terms of what he really accomplished. Maybe that was the only mistake of the BoD: RG shouldn't have become permanent CEO, but maybe things were different at this time (at least for the insiders).

- To fire RG without a substitute was a strong signal and a sign how important the CEO is in these times, where the main patents are under heavy fire by both the infringing companies and the USPTO: The CEO plays NO role as long as the patents are not revalidated and finance the running business and the "umbrella acitivities".

So who's responsible for our shareprice?

--- IMO it's the us-american patent system which is killing the genius of the little inventors and protecting the big companies.
--- IMO it's the companies who refuse to pay though they use the MMP since decades.
The BoD did the best they could do with Baroni: Engage someone from outside to take an inside look and help them to make a better decision than Turley or RG.

Believe me one thing: There's none who's more wishing for an increase of the shareprice but IMO it's not the BoD to blame.

GLTY