Regarding former CEO communication with shareholders, we'd pretty much have to go back and look at exactly WHAT was said.

My recollection is that they advised of their intent (at least in general terms) and "progress reports" (which were somewhat helpful/reassuring), but never shared anything with regard to any pending litigation or negotiations (other than perhaps that they were happening) until they reached a conclusion. Cliff and the current BoD have done likewise, at least on the latter.

There is no real point in their advising that litigation or negotiations are ongoing (though we've been advised of this as well), and there is no way they would or should provide any details. Such would nearly always be counterproductive, and NOT in the best interest of shareholders.

Regarding the move of offices and reporting of same, I honestly don't know if this qualifies as a required immediately reportable material event or not. Mail was still being delivered, and communication mechanisms remained in place. It isn't like they removed themselves from an ability to be contacted.

As for the "surprise visitor", IMO they should have used a little common sense and business etiquette, and called in advance to arrange contact. Would a reasonable person expect to be able to just show up at the door and gain an audience with whoever they wanted to talk to? They've got a business to run, and may have had a full schedule or been on business travel. Was there an expectation that they would bring business to a halt in order to entertain the surprise visitor?

As for the informal communication, it continues to amaze me that it is described as "informal" yet criticized because it was written in an informal fashion. And really, what was wrong with it? Was it really that outrageous? One very minor typo (fir - for) and one rather creative choice of words (embargo) that, while perhaps odd, did effectively communicate the intended message. Personally, I would have probably chosen the words "held in abeyance" - and many would have been searching for their dictionaries! But I acknowledge that I am perhaps the ONLY person that didn't have a big problem with it. This surprises even me, as I'm typically very critical of writing style, etc., and when in industry was known for always having a red pen handy! Anonymous? It came from PTSC, right?

As for the "limited distribution", I very strongly suspect that they fully expected that informal communication to be posted here and elsewhere - and the distribution to three (or more) virtually assured this would happen. Did that email say anything, really? No specification of the expected event, no date certain, a "hope", and qualification that it was contingent on others (presumeably beyond their control). There was nothing reportable in that communication. Zip. It was a heads up, nothing more.

And if they had made it a formal communication to all? And then the qualified action didn't happen? Could you imagine the fully justified screaming if they had elected that avenue, recognizing things expected/hoped for did not transpire? But what if things had worked out as expected when the email was written? Would there be congratulations flowing for the courtesy of a heads up?

Just my (probably lone) opinion, but this message board has shot its rhetorical self in the foot with all the complaints about that seeming attempt to be helpful to existing shareholders. I suspect it will never happen again.

As for licensing transparency, I'm open to correction but it is my understanding that a Judge has nothing to do with. I believe we've been advised in formal communications that there are times when the licensee demands that there be silence. And when the licensee demands silence as a condition of the license, would you have Alliacense refuse their money over it? Would it really be a deal breaker? Would you really want that? But I do admit that an occasional "Licensee Count" update would be appreciated and helpful, perhaps including a cummulative dollar value for a grouping of recent licensees (but I guess we have to have a grouping to enable this!).

As for having the ear of the BoD, it has oft been stated that there is a belief that BoD members read this board. Thus, it would seem we all have the ear of the BoD. But yes, I like many others have offered cooperative input to PTSC, and they have been receptive. Not that I can tout any success in influencing anything. That honor goes to but one person I'm (and we all are) aware of - Emtnester.

PDSG. I suspect that potential suitors know it's on the block. It's not something to be put on EBay. I could tell a long story (and you KNOW that! LOL), but I've witnessed a situation where a viable small piece of Hughes Aircraft - a commercial product line called Smog Dog (InfraRed Sensor technology) - was sold before anyone (but a select few) even knew it was for sale.

Cliff, CFO and Interim CEO. I certainly don't have an answer, but as it is it looks like we're getting a "two-fer".

I hope the above was at least a little helpful and is not taken as argumentative in a negative sense. And don't get me wrong regarding the original premise; I too would like to hear more from the company. But I recognize that in business you only disclose at the appropriate time and generally not until an event is concluded. Progress reports are useless unless there is significant progress to report. So we hope for conclusive events and significant progress....

Ahhh, another novel. Laurie made me do it! LOL

SGE