Below is info that was copied from three consecutive SEC filings that relate to PTSC legal proceedings at the time

10QSB (Filed: 21-01-2004)

Item 1. Legal Proceedings

In December 2003 we filed several lawsuits in United States District Courts

against companies we contend are infringing on our patent number 5,809,336

entitled "High Performance Microprocessor Having Variable Speed Clock." The

defendants and suits are as follows: Sony, Fujitsu, Toshiba, NEC USA, Matsushita

10QSB (Filed: 08-04-2004)

In February 2004, Intel Corporation filed a lawsuit against us in the United

States District Court- Northern District of California, case number C040439, in

which they are requesting a declaratory judgment to keep us from bringing

actions against their customers and requesting the court to invalidate our

5,809,336 patent. We filed a counterclaim against Intel contending that they

also are infringing on our patent.

10KSB (Filed: 19-08-2004)

Also in February 2004, the Company filed a lawsuit in the United States District

Court- Northern District of California, case number C040618, against Charles H.

Moore, Technology Properties Limited, and Daniel E. Leckrone. The Company is

requesting the court to declare inventorship and ownership on each of its

granted patents related to the suits discussed above and other unasserted claims

of infringement Patriot believes it has.

1. Why was there no mention of the Feb filing of the TPL/Moore lawsuit in the 10QSB dated April 8, 2004?

2. There is a distinction between inventorship and ownership. Did it take PTSC until Feb 2004 to know that there was another owner(not just co-inventor) of the MMP portfolio?

3. Would Swartz/Lincoln have invested in PTSC if he was aware of the cloud of co-ownership? Don’t forget, PTSC assigned a security interest to Swartz that was filed in the USPTO office.

4. Could it be that once PTSC became aware of Moore’s claim of co-ownership that perhaps pressure was exerted by Swartz to have his security interest protected thus the lawsuit against TPL/Moore?

5. Refer to the master agreement subdocument 5 pertaining to Swartz:

Release of Lien. Effective upon the receipt by the Rights Holder of the

consideration pursuant to Section 7 of this Agreement, the Rights Holder hereby

releases its liens with regard to the COMPANY's intellectual property portfolio,

including without limitation the MSD Patents, and agrees to take any and all

action necessary to cause all UCC financing statements, USPTO filings and other

filings or documents evidencing such lien to be terminated, provided that the

debts underlying such liens shall remain intact

I could find no release of lien filed with the USPTO, perhaps missed by me, perhaps not necessary.

All in my opinion.