This message and the one of yours that began this thread re: "common sense" have brought me out of lurk mode. Your "common sense" IMO is lacking.

No investor makes an investment purely based on the past, but is instead looking to the future. While past performance is certainly an influencing factor, in the end it is ALL about a company's down stream prospects. Can't anyone with common sense see this?

In response to retail shareholder concerns, the BoD has been cut from 5 to 3, with the newest addition accepting no additional pay for the appointment. All exactly as Gloria suggested, in concert with the Company's stated intent to issue dividends based on future licensing revenues, which has also been a proclaimed object of desire by retail shareholders. A past complaint is that the BoD wasn't listening. Does this complaint still hold water? Can't anyone with common sense see this?

There is talk of the failed acquisitions - the ones retail shareholders demanded over share buy-backs and issuing dividends. They didn't work out so well. How many start-up companies prospered in the last few years? How many still exist? In the case of PDSG, how many endured endless delays by the Government to respond to data availability concerns that have been known for over a decade, especially when the President made a big issue of the concern two years ago? And finally, the Government appears to be initiating action on this front via the recent BOA. Can't anyone with common sense see this?

How much did those failed acquisitions actually cost us at the end of the day? After tax considerations (declaration of losses), I bet under $10M. Still a lot, but had they gone "hog wild" in an effort to appease the "then demands" of retail shareholders, it could have been far worse. Can't anyone with common sense see this?

While PDSG is still "costing us", Cliff went through the agony of carefully examining PDSG's resources and laying off 19 out of 28 personnel. So ongoing costs have been cut very dramatically while maintaining performance capability (and acquiring contracts, thus demonstrating that performance capability). A low cost effective organization - exactly what a prospective suitor for acquisition/partnering is looking for. Can't anyone with common sense see this?

There is talk of how PTSC was "bested" in past dealings with TPL, essentially "rolling over" and not taking TPL to task. Have people been asleep for nearly a year? Does it look like PTSC is being completely passive in its dealings with TPL? It appears completely obvious that the stance has changed markedly - like 180 degrees. Can't anyone with common sense see this?

Further on that point, isn't it reasonable to assume (if not blatantly obvious) that PTSC was under a ton of pressure to settle with TPL before the AMS? While I hope for a positive settlement, I was personally extremely distressed up until the AMS with the concern that at that moment in time, PTSC was negotiating from a position of weakness. A clock is either your best friend or your worst enemy while engaged in negotiations. I was actually glad there was no settlement announced just prior to or at the AMS, because I would have concluded that PTSC had made concessions in order to "beat the clock". They didn't. The message from the lack of a settlement is that PTSC is playing extreme hard ball in those negotiations. Can't anyone with common sense see this?

Meanwhile, at the USPTO, the '336 has survived multiple reexams and we haven't seen a new request for about six months. The other patents remain in process, but (considering the passage of time/years) may be nearing a conclusion. The technology, and the future, that 99.9% of retail shareholders originally invested in may finally be coming to fruition. Can't anyone with common sense see this?

And those who suggest they exercise their common sense with a complete focus and commentary based on the now-distant past, and how it is an absolute predictor of how PTSC's future will unfold - they are still here, right? There must be a reason they stay invested. Can't anyone with common sense see this?

And then there is the comparison with EDIG. Today it closed at 10 cents. Realistically, at what PPS should EDIG have closed today? They have the EVu, which they choose to market solely in the IFE venue - with minimal and decreasing success - even though they were presented with prime opportunities to market the now outdate device in other venues many years ago. They have patents on removeable flash memory (when are they due to expire?), a licensing market that is far dwarfed by the licensing market for the MMP. And they have essentially the same management in place that they had a decade ago, with Fred at the helm and Robert departed (which IMO is unfortunate, as he was the only one with any business sense). And Robert.... His transfusion of capital is the only thing that kept EDIG afloat, for which he received (all?) preferred shares. But there is no screaming about it on that message board. The EDIG board is the polar opposite of the PTSC board. So, again, where should EDIG have closed today? Look at its past. Look at its future. Compare with PTSC. The prevailing depiction of positive things on that board holds EDIG's PPS higher than IMO it should be. In contrast, all things considered, the prevailing negative focus on PTSC's past is holding PTSC's PPS below where it should be. Can't anyone with common sense see this?

Well, I've said my piece. Back to lurk mode for me.... Take my mesage and attitude for what it's worth, as I do not intend to argue these points (assuming they are even arguable).

SGE

PS: Now I see NEWS. PTSC now able to exercise more oversight of MMP licensing activities. Do you believe that Lecky was open to this proposition? More evidence of hard ball negotiations, and apparent success. Can't anyone with common sense see this?