GregBailey wrote "As it is, Chuck had to learn about these in the usual way: Reading about it in press releases or on this forum. It is disappointing to me that PTSC management has chosen not to keep Chuck in the loop about licensing of the patents he co-owns with your company."

Seems to me PTSC has no mandate to alert Chuck to licensing activity.
Seems to me Chuck's attorney or whomever represents him should be the one.
Maybe an argument could be made that PDS should be the communicator. Who runs PDS? (Rhetorical)

These new licenses are certainly good news - better than no news (unless the revenues are exceeded by the PDS and legals costs etc). But there's still no quantitative data (how many, what price etc). How are "we" shareholders or prospective shareholders supposed to gauge that value of these new licenses and thus the incremental value to the stock price?

If some of these licenses were "entered into" in December and January, why weren't they quantified at the Share Holders' Annual Meeting (SHAM)?

I'm waiting for an IBM PR statement that says "IBM announce the lease of an unspecified number of widgets at a confidential price to an undisclosed client somewhere."
Then I'll know PTSC is being run like a real company.

As for "Board Bashing" - I agree we should stop - even though it proves there are active shareholders who care about PTSC. But if this board stops then the PTSC Board needs to start... demand an audit of TPL and PDS books for a start, then demand that no Board member be an employee of or contractor/consultant to any third party in a position to influence PTSC stock price or company strategy.

To call a special Shareholder meeting needs 10% - i.e. representation of about 4.07 million shares. Can we get that level of support?