GCDUCK: "I don't want to be offensive but I'd really like to know what you think is the nature of the IP business, because for me this is the main issue in the perception of PTSC:

Those who accept the IP business to be a highly sensitive and secretive business which is completely different to normal businesses - and those who look at Patriot as if it would sell apples or PCs or whatever."

Michael: don't sell the shareholders short. I do understand the fundamentals of why there is some secrecy requirement for a marketing/sales reason. However, a public company has obligations to its shareholders and one of those is to divulge adequate information for a shareholder or prospective shareholder to make a reasonably informed decision on his or her investment.

Separate from any MMP licensing arrangements and business, the BOD has a horrendous track record of investments and failed to notify a critical decision regarding the Majority Vote reversal. This latter situation is deplorable since anyone reading the 2010/2011 proxy and the subsequent report would be under the impression that the next shareholder vote would be under the Majority rules. For around 10 months the BOD allowed this perception to remain public and only disclosed its stance to the public (a) after deadlines for new shareholder proposals were well behind us and (b) buried in FAQs which potential investors would not know about. The concerned shareholders on this board and elsewhere sought but never received a reply from PTSC regarding the change that was approved almost a year ago. Furthermore, I doubt that all shareholders (rightly or wrongly) subscribe to the PTSC email/newsletter feed. The BOD can not pass this off under the "licensing secrecy" catch-all. If deliberate, their failure to disclose this material decision is unconscionable if not illegal. If not deliberate then the failure is evidence of the BOD's lack of understanding of what shareholders of a public company should be told. Since the Approval was in an SEC document, the decision to ignore the Approval should, to my mind, also have been in an SEC document - even in a quarterly report. It is clear to anyone with a brain that the BOD had already determined its position even before the vote was taken, as evidenced by their lengthy rebuttal in the 2010/2011 Proxy. They didn't need to wait 10 months - they could have even stated their intended action after the vote and perhaps could have stated their intended "non-binding" interpretation either in the Proxy or at least prior to the vote - or even after it.

As for the TPL "settlement", it's like publicly accusing your spouse of adultery and then, when he or she threatens divorce, backing down and agreeing to pay him/her thousands of dollars a month to avoid the split. We all thought that the BOD had finally found some courage in taking on TPL. Instead, we get saddled with more expenses going directly to TPL and its affiliate(s). Go figure. I don't understand why PTSC has to fund TPLs cash-flow when TPL unilaterally decided to change attorneys.

All we have seen since that decision is one license of unknown value.
I'd rather see announcements of the type "We have licensed MMP to a <generic business sector e.g. digital camera> company for $xxxxxx [with ongoing royalties estimated at $xxxx per xxxxx for the next xx years]." than "We licensed MMP to <company name>." without the financial details that let the public (this is a public company, right?) be better informed of the company's performance.

Add to this the BODs financial policies relating to their and Cliff's remunerations in a company that has lost millions of dollars under their so-called guidance and you should be able to understand the shareholder concerns and frustrations. It's not just about "licensing secrecy". It's about competence, transparency, honesty, integrity and respect for shareholders.