Count me as one who would still prefer that PTSC use some future MMP funds to invest in a company that would ensure future income.

Some random thoughts

• The venture capital analogy is a good one. The company invested in a sexy technology and tried to go up against super heavyweights like IBM, Siemens, etc. Is it any wonder that the strategy failed? (This can't all be RG's fault, the BOD has to take some responsibility)
• The company could invest in steady (non sexy) companies with good management that generate income (Holocom)

• The shell company idea is a bad idea and is a tacit admission that the BOD is incapable of long term thinking. It creates a finite end of the company when licensing ends.
• Without steady income, dividends are useless and a sop to shareholders who cling to 2006 thinking that the stock will rise while the BOD takes money out of the company. (and in 2006 delivered most of it to Swartz. Who returned the favor by dumping 200 million shares(?) onto the marketplace)
• Share repurchases could be used to reduce the outstanding float