I too checked the author's credentials prior to even mentioning that article. While his education is fairly impressive, and he while he appears to be "recognized" to some degree (though his Marketing degrees did make me wonder how much of that had to do with effective self-promotion), I cannot say I was truly impressed. We agree.

But some of his comments were in line with other things I've seen re: the IP space WILN occupies. That being that the space is very crowded, with hoards of overlapping tech/patents. Perhaps the most profound comment in the article was "broad patents that are claimed to be important for a standard long after that standard has become widespread", which may very well be true and points to a high probability of the existence of conflicting prior art.

All of this leads me to the conclusion that their patents alleged to be valid and infringed are extremely ripe for prior art claims in reexam requests. The follow-on conclusion being that they are likely facing an uphill climb in doing battle with the PTO (compounded by my not-so-good impression of PTO examiner abilities and a seeming desire to confound the process with ignorance of the tech and terminology). In other words, WILN may not be as successful in combatting the PTO as PTSC has been. And it took us how long?

And of course this is only half of the equation. Is there infringement, and does WILN really have the litigation horsepower to overcome that of alleged infringers? But I admit, so far, so good.

But the above is the place from which my "the game isn't over" comments arise. All else aside, I do believe it is reasonable to conclude that PTSC's reexam difficulties and a long-standing open question as to MMP validity seriously impacted MMP licensing and litigation. Also, the litigation/"is there infringement" side of the PTSC story has also impacted licensing, with delays, delays and more delays. It would appear that WILN may be only just entering the unavoidable perilous path that PTSC has already ventured.

And all of this again points to my original contention. The comparison of PTSC and WILN may not provide much insight. Other aspects (of course the IMO insane partners that PTSC endures) further upset the comparison. Add to this the fact that WILN apparently owns over 1000 patents, and we have half ownership of seven. I consider this a significant contrast.

But I conceed that to date, looking at the two situations at this moment in time, WILN and its management are outperforming and are better equipped than PTSC. And I believe this is the point of this entire discussion. You win, as of today. But if you are invested in WILN, IMO, look out! But I will take John's advice and continue to watch, and potentially invest at some point to diversify (but the above makes me very leery - tainted by bad experiences primarily involving the PTO). John has done well with his investment to date. And I hope he doesn't object to my sharing that his expectation is a triple from his entry point to $20/share within a year. For him, I hope he is right.

This points to my decision to ride out PTSC as opposed to dumping and placing a bet with WILN. I honestly believe, as I have for months/years (obviously), that PTSC could potentially outperform in that coming one year timeframe. That is why I have stayed, and I strongly suspect that's why all here stay, yourself included despite your concerns about PTSC management. This could be regarded as hype, but we are all still here, and there is a reason for that, and I cannot fathom what else it could be. It's about potential, and money! BTW, my statement is about the closest I've seen to hype on this message board in a very long time. Wow! Recognizing that we've seen a PPS over 24 cents within the past year, that's actually pretty weak hype! LOL

BTW, with their superior management, why isn't WILN listed on NASDAQ alongside their peers in their IP space? Too soon, not above $5 long enough? I thought the requirement was 30 days....which has long passed, and market cap obviously isn't an issue. It seems that move would provide value to their shareholders....

Much of this discussion (particularly the article) is admittedly "OT", and I may request that Agora move some of these posts to the OT board tomorrow.

Apologies for the novel.

FWIW,

SGE