While you can argue validly that PTSC had to deal with Leckrone, WHY would you doubt PTSC could have done better? Last I checked, today, and in 2005, PTSC owned 50% of the patents. Moore/TPL, owned the other 50%. Why then did PTSC HAVE to take this deal? Better yet, WHY did PTSC not impose a deal that was similarly weighted, but in REVERSE, on Moore/TPL?

It's clearly not based on TPL having a lot of money, and PTSC little, as TPL simply cut a deal with Intel and then used the proceeds from their deal with Intel to pay off PTSC. Why didn't PTSC cut a deal with HP, or one of the other infringers, and turn around and payoff TPL for control of the MMP instead?

There's always this conclusion that PTSC HAD to take the TPL deal or lose everything. TPL was not Goliath, and PTSC no David at the time. Yet TPL managed to club PTSC's BOD over the head and grab control.

The bottom line is PTSC was out negotiated at the time, and while they gave up more than they should have, any competent manager or director would have understood the weaknesses of the agreement the DID make, and thier fiduciary duty to us DEMANDED that they be ever vigilant to assure we didn't end up exactly where we are. Yet, they failed US there as well! Yet we see all along they've had no problem strapping on the feed bag for their own benefit.

Our BOD had CONSISTENTLY been outmaneuvered, outnegotiated, and out to lunch, and yet we continue to find excuses for their actions posted here.