I've requested reponses to these questions 3 separate times over the last 2 months. The company has chosen to completely ignore my questions, not even acknowledging them with a no comment or unable to repond, etc.

Some of these have gone away because of the settlement, but if anyone else is interested in answers, please peitition the company and let us know if they'll respond to others less critical than myself. Thanks in advance.

3rd attempt.

Mr. Flowers, Mr. Johnson, and Ms. Felcyn :

With each passing day, PTSC’s management team and board of director members seem to take a more detached view of your responsibility to serve shareholders of the company you steward. All the while, you continue to maneuver to fiercely protect your power and control of the company, and your lavish compensation relative to the less than stellar performance you have delivered.

This attitude is reflected in many ways, whether it be in the form of virtual shareholder meetings, a cessation of announcements when vital MMP contracts are signed, or now, perfunctory PR’s simply announcing that the 10-K has been filed with no further typical elaboration, and the voluntary demotion to the non-accelerated filing status. On the rare times when you do communicate, you often voice a frustration at the restrictions placed on your ability to communicate due to the contracts involved, or the court orders, conveniently sidestepping that those are a direct result of poor agreements you negotiated yourselves, signed, and of which you failed to provide proper oversight.

Simply put, these are weak excuses. Worse yet, they are a result of ignoring prior encouragement by concerned shareholders to proactively challenge the language of those agreements and confirm against the very charges now levied against TPL, as we knew that it could and would likely lead us to the very situation to which we now find that you have guided the company. Instead of heeding the call, and proactively addressing the issues and resolving them while the MMP was in the throes of re-exams, so the MMP team could hit the ground running when the re-exams were complete, you instead accepted “unsatisfactory responses” from Dan Leckrone (as Mr. Johnson put it in his declaration to the court), thus delaying the required corrections until now, a time that the MMP team should be unified and strengthened, having largely emerged from the re-exam process.

While I could go on, I won’t. But clearly I am not pleased with your performance or excuse mentality, or with your unwillingness to reflect the personal responsibility you bear for it.

Now with the 10-K being issued, and in light of the revelations found in the various legal filings associated with TPL’s litigations with its various business partners, I ask the following questions:

• Why has the Apple MMP license signing not been announced or acknowledged? They are the most valuable public company in the world, yet no mention of their signing?

• Has the Apple MMP license revenue been recognized in the PDS portion of the PTSC financials to date?

• How long will PTSC continue to reflect the clearly misleading “pie chart” on the PTSC website?

• In light of the obvious intent of TPL to delay and prolong the litigation process, and their clear disdain and disregard for PTSC’s interests, has this BOD/Management team pursued viable licensing options in the likely event there is no amicable resolution to the TPL partnership?

• How is it that despite official resolutions, legal maneuvers, and other commentary by PTSC that we will no longer fund TPL’s activities that TPL is received nearly 93% of the $11.1M in MMP revenues last fiscal year? It’s understood that a good portion of that goes to 3rd parties, but in light of the claim that Alliances qualifies as a 3rd party, and PTSC’s acquiescence in part on this issue, and on additional “funding grants” by PDS to TPL, TPL seems to be getting PTSC to fund its legal fight against PTSC by absolving Leckrone of having to figure out his own funding issues. All the while, despite Ms. Felcyn’s analysis of an “insolvent” TPL, Leckrone seems to have plenty of cash to initiate new legal action on other fronts, as well as incur additional legal fees by extending and delaying the litigation with PTSC. It appears as though Leckrone is outmaneuvering PTSC yet again. What is the battle plan now? There have been past declarations by PTSC of “this is it” with respect to TPL, yet only to be revealed in SEC and Court filings, that “this wasn’t really it”. What is a shareholder supposed to believe?

• Added in 3rd attempt to receive answers: PTSC and others have touted the ‘336 patent as the most important and powerful patent, and PTSC issued a PR when the ‘336 NIRC was issued. Additionally, in February of this year, PTSC PR’d that the subsequent reexam request by Chen Yoshimura LLP had been denied in November of 2010. Was PTSC aware that Chen Yoshimura LLP petitioned that denial and that not until August 12, 2011, was that petition also formally denied by the USPTO? With all of the downward pressure in the stock price due to PTSC’s inability to reign in TPL, why wouldn’t PTSC at least try to communicate this positive development on the ‘336 in an effort to portray something POSITIVE about the company, amidst all of the negatives? Will PTSC issue a PR to communicate this to the market as they have in the past?