With respect, I was addressing the criteria YOU had set for success and pointing out that PTSC had, apparently, been unable to meet those criteria over a period of several years.

You are the one who said the patents must be impregnable. I agree this is US PTO hands for certain challenges. However, about 80 companies have already licensed so do you contend that all of the alleged 'hundreds' remaining are awaiting US PTO? How many of the remaining 'hundreds' have perhaps not yet been contacted?

You are the one who said a strong sales force is necessary, and I pointed that PTSC doesn't have one. What about sales/marketing to aggressively pursue partnerships for Cross-Flo etc? If PDSG "might be sold", who is strongly looking at "selling" it and with what expertise? Does TPL/Alliacense have a 'strong' sales force or are they waiting on US PTO before pursuing the remaining 'hundreds'?

You are the one who said reliable ongoing revenues are required. I agree that US PTO is a large factor but, again, what about the remaining 'hundreds' of companies?

However if, as you seem to imply, PTSC cannot progress until US PTO is 'done', then now is the time to get a BOD in place that has the legal, financial and business expertise to aggressively pursue MMP licenses, hold TPL/Alliacense's feet to the fire, review each and every past agreement for fiduciary responsibility, litigate as necessary and also decide what to do with PDSG.

The prior BODs, as whole, haven't had the results that should have been forthcoming.
When the "whole" isn't working right, divide and conquer.

===============================================

Re: @PeteLozano and Shboomer - what's your goal?