You made the following statement.

"With the '336 NIRC, PDSG moving forward, action on the other patents, revenue potential increasing, the price is going to improve anyway.

I look forward to reading what will be done over and above this to increase shareholder value, as there surely can't be claims of succees for that which is already in motion, can there?"

We both know those two statements do not move in conjunction. The "potential" of something certainly does not equate to a "guarantee". You have been a staunch supporter of the notion that said patents have always been valid. While I don't share all of your views, I have always been in agreement with that. The patents are valid and have been throughout the entire USPTO process. For me, that has been one of the biggest mysteries surrounding lack of licensing. We now have a second NIRC on the '336. The question is why didn't we see a massive wave of signings after the first NIRC was issued? Are we to believe hundreds of companies did not fear the original patent or the first NIRC and now they will come running with a 2nd NIRC? We have no way to validate the statements made by TPL regarding the issue of potential licensees. We've been told for years that companies are waiting for USPTO confirmation. If so, then why so many settlements with larger corporations, at fees that are grossly disproportionate relative to revenues and assumed chip usage?

So many questions yet to be answered but, we do have history on our side. History demonstrates that at one time the portfolio showed promise and revenue. The problem is once the slightest hint of success came to fruition, many of our current BOD members elected to be fiscally irresponsible. I'm not for change just for the sake of change. I am, however, puzzled by your consistant resistance to the mention of any form of action to move shareholder concerns forward. What you ask for doesn't exist and you know it. No one can "guarantee", there's that word again, a positive outcome to any changes. The world doesn't work from a text book. You may execute plan A and wind up using plan Z. With that said the good Dr. Faulk has yet to demonstrate what intangible assets he brings to the table and how those have benefited shareholders. While I don't know Stan Caplan from a hole in the wall, I do know Dr. Faulks performance. At this point fresh blood, with a financial background, would appear to be more valuable to the company then a doctor. Perhaps someone with a financial background would have prevented an unsecure loan. Apparently our resident account missed that lesson in college. With that said, I want full disclosure regarding Mr. Caplan's relationship with Eric Swartz. It would be a damn shame if retail shareholders inadvertently helped put another Swartz associate on the board.

You question what can be done above and beyond that which is "supposedly" in motion. I take a very different stance. If that is the case, this would be the best time to recruit talent and have those persons in place for the wave that is supposedly coming. It doesn't mean we get access to GE quality candidates but, we can certainly do just as well as our resident doctor, lawyer and local CPA.