Thank you for your answers. They are well thought out and truly appreciated.

I'll try to respond to some if not all.

The dealer? Ultimately IMO, Moore. Followed by Leckrone.

Communication? Agreed, though recognizing inherent limitations. But more would be better.

Capable process oversight? I'm not sure what process or general processes you are referring to. But I note you left out Cliff. Perhaps his abilities have not been adequately revealed, one way or the other. IMO, you may be selling the others short, but history is not kind. If you are talking licensing process oversight (costs), that is supposed to be happening. Business decision-making oversight of Alliacense (detailed; e.g., infringer candidate prioritization)? Difficult, regardless of who, unless PTSC owned/had a direct ownership interest in Alliacense.

Cut compensation? Agreed, though what I'd like to see is some timekeeping record. How much time is being dedicated? I suspect far more than many here believe. But a record of such would be helpful to assess. You may recall my response to a question (the only question) put to me during my brief BoD bid; if elected, would I be willing to forego that whopping $3K/month Director pay, and go solely with options? My response was that if I found myself working extreme, or even normal work hours (40/week), I would want that compensation (and more - my time and expertise is worth more than 15-20 bucks an hour. Where I live, unskilled illegals make $10-20/hour under the table; babysitters - $8-14). But under customary BoD circumstances (occasional meetings), I would certainly forego the salary and rely on Options.

Stewards of PDSG? IMO, impossible to assess. Cliff controls the reins, and the CDX management team I believe is largely intact. But they are trying to break into a crowded market (where there is money to be made, a crowd forms), and they are very small in size compared to the competition. How many times have you seen (especially in the tech world) the "better mouse trap" overwhelmed by a large competitor? Apple and the original IPOD come to mind - inferior product, huge/effective marketing. This is the primary reason I was consistently opposed to M&A activity - way too much risk. I'm less concerned about the stewardship and far more concerned about the market/product acceptance. It's out there, it's known, how many will adopt?

Aggressively pursue Leckrone? I think that is exactly what they've been trying to do. Has anyone had success dealing with this guy? You speak to the past, and the relatively recent past. But what would you do starting today?

End game? It appears you are following through with the above. This is something we can discuss further. It does seem that virtually any alternative may be hazardous, or that shareholder expectations wouldn't be met (e.g., sell of interest in the MMP - how much is enough?, how much is possible recognizing risk to the buyer?).

Eliminate the perception issues? Agreed. IMO, this is something that has needed to be more fully addressed.

As far as the "revenue dam" (or "revenue....damn!"), I only see a couple of things that could break it loose. It seems settlement with TPL is the obvious one. Also a favorable resolution of the disputes with the T3. Both would be best, but still doesn't offer absolute certainty. But it would put us much closer, if not over the top.

The filing issue? Agreed, filing per the outdated schedule would have avoided the entire issue. But I do believe PTSC was completely blindsided. Should they have made confirmations that everyone necessary was properly notified? For all we know, they did. I could tell many stories of actual freaky dealings with Government agencies/personnel, where everything was done properly, confirmed in writing, etc., and things STILL went haywire from their end. It's not like such things never happen. Heck, look to the PTO and the '336 reexam (or re-reexam of the exact same prior art). Even if they had done as you also suggest, and did a PR and 8K in advance, the same exact thing could have happened.

Perhaps we can cooperatively explore the "TPL Strategy" further, albeit with limited visibility and only our perceptions to rely on. The toughest part is that we're dealing with IMO a greed-crazed sociopath, so rational solutions may be useless. However, I believe PTSC has taken the hard stand (per the recent PR), and will not relent. The question may actually be "how can more pressure be applied on Leckrone?" or perhaps "how can ENOUGH pressure be applied?".

Your reply is, again, appreciated.

SGE