Certain board members like Falk represent very large shareholders (Falk Trust). I do not know the size of their investment but by virtue of the size of their investment, presumably, are on the board. Mind you I am not defending this BOD. Far be it. I agree that some if not all should be removed. But substituting one fool for another does nothing to enhance our investments.

Ask yourselves these questions:

Who could have been on the board these past few years and have prevented the constant challenges to our patents before the USPTO? This alone created the most doubt among potential investors of the validity of our business.

Who could have been on the board these past few years have prevented the legal challenges in the courts from the infringers and tied up PTSC in the courts?

There are certainly legitmate criticisms againts the current board for other transgressions but can anybody actually garaunteed (sorry spelling is not my forte) that some of those they propose would have have any better?"

The last question is (also asked by others before):

WHY NOW?

It's just a few days that we had the most important victory in the company's life: The final validation of the most important patent.
The next step is the final solution of the TPL/PTSC dispute.
And THEN it is time for the BoD to think about a new management for PTSC and PDSG (don't mix up management with BoD!!!!) but not before - please explain how it fits together to reduce costings (as PTSC did this year) and on the same time install new guys in the management while the uncertainty with the patents?
In a nutshell: If the BoD chooses Mickey Mouse or Pamela Anderson for CEO in September 2010 THEN we can question the capability of the BoD.

IMO this action is not honest, let's hope the upcoming results will make it moot.

GLTA