>PTSC doesn't have a product that is really marketable to consumers or private businesses, and, at best, the products it does have are more applicable to govermental entities.

PTSC does not need a marketable product, strictly as an investment it makes sense to put your dollars here, the fact that other companies are using PTSC technology on thier products is by itself a milestone. To be more exact PTSC has a Product called Licenses.

Advertising: BASF advertised (no products) just their name brand, Siemans and many others. Advertising is a tool for name brand recognition. People themselves will wonder who is PTSC, what do they do, and when they do their DD then they will invest.

Also advertisng is great especially before a major court win, because people will have it in the back of their mind... PTSC and when a major court win is announced, people will rush to buy stock.

>to assume that merely because a lawsuit has been filed, and/or that there have been lots of settlements over the last few years, this equals "proof of infringement" or "validation of the patents" --- sorry, but it just ain't so.

Sorry but you are assuming that I assumed : )

Not the case here, that is not what I intended to make you think, and Injunction is a tool that may be used to make the infringers seriously consider settleing or to admit fault.

Which in this stage is perfect after 17 revalidations.

>The bottom line is that, until TPL/PTSC have a judgment of infringement in hand, or are able to present in a pretrial hearing admissible evidence so strong as to be able to convince a court that they would likely win that issue at trial, no judge would realistically consider issuing an injunction. The standard of proof for obtaining an injunction is quite high, because, if issued, the adverse party is precluded from doing business to at least some extent, if not substantially --- most certainly, therefore, one is not able to simply walk into court and successfully argue, "Judge, I've filed a lawsuit, so now give me an injunction". Again, sorry, but it just ain't so.

However now with that explanation I can understand your thought and reason, so then we wait for a court win, then the next jerk that we take to court we ask for an injuction!

Great explanation though!