How much time would most of you who support the current BOD give?

Felcyn requested 120 days to evidence success at PDSG else consideration would be given to selling it. Just because the PRs describing the way forward with PDSG didn't appear precisely after that period shouldn't be construed as there being no evidence, but it was and continues.

As to the NIRC, shareholders should expect larger license fees based on actual infringement, and not the market capitalization of an alleged infringer. But pressing for larger fees will obviously lead to delays which would not be present if accepting less.

Either the '336 is the patent that is claimed, and infringers should therefore pay top dollar, or it isn't and one should be grateful for nuisance fees going forward.

From the hundreds placed on notice four years ago, less than 80 have so far licensed, and there are no doubt many more having been placed on notice since then, and despite suggestions to the contrary, it will be lawyers who actually control the time frame, more so those for the infringers in attempting, as per their remit, to pay as little as possible, whereas those for PTSCTPL will be pushing for a greater fee, as per their remit.

License cheaply to generate revenues in a short time frame?

or,

Press for higher fees taking longer and at the same time returning greater value to shareholders?

Is it really being suggested that PRs should be issued merely for the sake of issuing a set number during the year, so that shareholders are updated regularly?

Imagine a monthly PR about the '336:

The '336 is currently undergoing review at the USPTO and we eagerly await their decision (There was nothing else to say, so why insist on being told what was already known?)

Or one for PDSG:

The 120 day deadline arrived today and as we have evidence of success shall be maximizing its potential for the benefit of shareholders (Again, what else was there to be said at the time, other than staing the obvious?)

A PR is to announce something that has occurred since the last update, not repetition of "nothing has changed since the previous PR", which serves no useful purpose and costs time and money to issue.

One point about PTSC that not even the most ardent critic can fault is their timely reporting of significant events, anything else is just a wasteful exercise in hand-holding, in my very humble opinion.

When PTSC had a cash balance they did indeed consult with "experts" as to the best form of investment for those funds. Had the advice been ignored then, and only then, could allegations of how poorly they acted be made.

Think about it in context.

.

.

.

Be well