From Roger Cook's bio

In 2005, successfully defended and settled Patriot Scientific's claim that Charles Moore was not a co-inventor, and that Charles Moore and Technology Properties Limited were not co-owners of the Moore Microprocessor Patent (MMP) portfolio.

http://www.kilpatricktownsend.com/en/Who_We_Are/Professionals/C/CookRogerL14927.aspx

From the Master Agreement

ARTICLE III

REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES OF PATRIOT

3.6 Intellectual Property.

(a) Except as set forth on Schedule 3.6(a), Patriot owns exclusively all right, title and interest in and to the MSD Patents, free and clear of any and all Liens, encumbrances or other adverse ownership claims, and Patriot has not received any notice or claim challenging Patriot's ownership of the MSD Patents or suggesting that any Person, other than TPL and Moore, has any claim of legal or beneficial ownership with respect thereto, nor, to Patriot's knowledge, is there a reasonable basis for any claim that Patriot does not have such good and valid title to the MSD Patents. P.12

ARTICLE IV

REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES OF TPL

4.6 Intellectual Property.

(a) TPL has a valid and subsisting license to the MSD Patents from Moore. Except as disclosed on Schedule 4.6(a), TPL has not received any notice or claim challenging TPL's rights with respect to the MSD Patents or suggesting that any Person, other than Patriot and Moore, has any claim of legal or beneficial ownership with respect thereto, nor, to TPL's knowledge, is there a reasonable basis for any such claim. P.14

http://sec.edgar-online.com/patriot-scientific-corp/8-k-current-report-filing/2005/06/15/Section5.aspx

I hope that other shareholders would like to know once and for all, who owns the MMP?

How did TPL transition from having a valid and subsisting license to the MSD from Moore to being a co-owner as has been highly publicized in most PRs?

I would like the BoD to show proof positive any legal documents that will once and for all answer this question, because for me, it has never really been resolved.

I would also like the BoD to tell us why Swartz is still listed as an assignee of the MMP patents in the patent office. Pursuant to the MA, Swartz was supposed to file a release. If this has been done, prove it. Shareholders have a right to know these things.