My apologies for not having directed my reply to you as opposed to John's post, but my thought was to facilitate a quick and easy verification of the compensation figure I cited early on with just one click.

Skippen's compensation

"If any of PTSC's CEOs and/or BoD members had generated similar results..."

That's the point, however shotlived, Pohl took us to a $900M+ market cap (correcting my prior $850M figure - 400M+ shares out @ $2.25/share. And I believe the dates I cited were also incorrect, but it doesn't alter the point being made).

I believe this was when you unloaded some of your position. No appreciation for that ROI? It made you a free roller (and I'm jealous! LOL).

"Shotgun approach to litigation", and the article cited by milestone

My comments were in the context of the article. I'll post it so that perhaps you can find your way to read it - it may be relevant to your investment in EDIG, and thus worthy of a look (it's short). But thank you for your point re: statute of limitations, which may be applicable along with my suggestion re: method of identifying entities properly accountable for causing damages to WILN.

As to Milestone's identity, I don't know and I really don't care - just as I don't know who Wolf is, or most anyone here. But you're certainly free to elect to avoid his posts.

The "most scrutined patents ever" (in a PTO context)

I thought this was a comment by PTSC early this year, but now I cannot find it (only the "serial attack" comment and others alluding to the extent of PTO reexam activity). I apologize to all for my apparent error.

Indication of how powerful? You must admit that infingers have attacked with great vigor. The MMP must be a significant threat. The point was that IF the WILN patents are a similar threat, they should expect similar attacks.

"Hard luck"

I don't see those Moore-related events as excuses, but simply matters of unarguable fact that have hurt us immeasureably. Think of where we could be today if either one of those events had not occurred.

And BTW, I don't believe the company has made public reference to those events as hard luck, excuses or anything, ever. It was just my characterization of EDIG's Markman outcome which many find faulty, and my characterization of the Moore-related events over which PTSC had zero influence.

I certainly would not characterize those events as Good Luck. But, if the situation were where those events were known to be inevitable, or even possible, and they DIDN'T happen, I would consider that Good Luck for us - but not an excuse or reason for success (assuming a greater likelihood that success would be enjoyed).

Points we agree on

It appears you misread my statement. I said: "This does not remove those who approved the agreements with Leckrone from responsibility." My intent was not limited to the BoD. Do you still agree?

As for "look at the scoreboard" (re: PTSC versus WILN, or anything really), such is only truly effective when the game is over. It isn't, as you acknowledge. But to date, you are correct - WILN as of now is "winning".

My apologies for this reply being lengthier than expected. Buy hey, it is short by the established "SGE novel" standard! LOL

SGE