Firstly, apologies if you took my reply the wrong way as there was absolutely no intention to appear snobbish.

Let's go back to the first licencees.

I, and I humbly suggest many others, took this as being the start of a huge influx of licensing fees, and consequently chased the price up, so as not to miss out on the potential returns. The payment of dividends, which again I believe was in part due to the potential revenue stream, got many more investing, if only for the dividends.

It has to be noted that the other part of the dividend payment initiative was to remove all existing warrants from the equation with their downward price resets. This removed all debt from the balance sheet.

People took their profits, others held expecting further increases in the price.

The patents were hit by numerous re-examination requests.

Licensing stalled and was sporadic, with fees received being less than most, including myself, had expected, and it was therefore impossible to ascertain any reliable earnings guidance. Without being able to predict future revenues the price, as a direct consequence, started a downward trend, which continues today.

The BoD can not make alleged infringers obtain a license, yet so many fail to comprehend this fact. A company will license when and if they are ready, and not a moment sooner.

It now transpires that the sole licensing agent might have acted improperly and the allegations are now before a court.

Much has been made about the BoD failing in some respects yet this disingenous tirade places the blame incorrectly on the non-executive directors whose roles are clearly defined, and do not include due diligence of executive director's due diligence.

Repetition does not make something correct, yet many will believe that which has been constantly repeated has to be correct, and then go on to base their own arguments/comments on this disinformation.

As I said in my previous post, had there been even an inkling of impropriety by the BoD the "great" legal minds would already be all over it, if not by direct action, then ongoing and regular complaints to the SEC. After all these years of allegations, why has there been absolutely no evidence of any type of formal investigation?

.

.

.

Be well