No, I didn't "miss the fact". Maybe you should research a bit before you post your opinions. The FACT is that, for Q410, PTSC reported $1.38M in MMP license revenue to PDS. Arcelik was the only "announced" license in that period. The next quarter, they reported ZERO MMP revenues.

Additionally, in the court filings there have been references to PTSC requesting that the monies be placed on hold. So in light of the totality of the info, the likelihood that Apple revenues are included in the $1.38M of the contemporaneous filings is pretty slim.

I can understand if you're ignorant of the information, as you have shown little desire to independently research anything, and a sense of entitlement to info gathered by others, but in the future, please consider doing some DD. I have, though I must thank those who have shared some of their research with me as well. At the least, I don't comment as you have without at least being able to substantiate my view with some factual evidence.

I also understand milestone's point. Unfortunately, it's factually INCORRECT and thus misleading. It needed to be corrected. As for the likelihood that the "backlog" amounts will likely turn into revenues THIS year, I suggest you look at the type of projects PDSG is getting. Check their durations. Then perhaps you can speak to the matter intelligently. Considering the history of stalled public initiatives, and the typical durations of such projects, I'm sure you'll be able to substantiate why you feel so comfortable in projecting these as revenues for this year. I'll await your cogent response. Ultimately, I share your hope that it DOES materialize as recognized revenue for FY2012, but considering all the failures to date, it would appear a realistic conservative approach would prove most wise.

As for the post you claim as misleading. If you or others took it as intended to direclty refer to PTSC, I apologize. In hindsight, I don't deny it could be misconstrued as such to the drive-by reader. I thought my clarification would have sufficed. Mea culpa.

However, you also must've missed what I thought was the clear sarcasm reflected in my post's title. I found the fact that the lifeblood provider of the PTSC's revenue was given only an expressed 32 day bill of health, yet no other adjustments being deemed necessary, as pretty funny / ironic. Perhaps I'm the only one who saw it that way. I can see clearly though that one who is predisposed to argue contrary to anything I post would see otherwise and sieze the opportunity to try and posture the unintended conclusion of being misleading. That being said, with the further explanation of the conclusion of how this will directly impact PTSC's vitality/viability, you have yet to explain your view of how this is misleading or illogical.