"He too is disappointed in the MMP fees but given the marketplace and its view of patent licensers... it is what it is... until something changes... "

The more I think about this comment, the more infuriated I become and the more it detracts from any credibility Flowers has left with me. This is a long post, so feel free to skip it if your not interested.

I look at it from THIS perspective. Over the last 2 years, TPL has been licensing the MMP to bohemoths like Apple, GE, Motorola, Tyco, Disney, etc. In addition to them, there are at least 6 other companies that have remained anonymous over the last 2 years. Perhaps there are some other bohemoths among them as well. PTSC likes to say that's per the request of the licensee, but it's pretty clear that it's actually at TPL/PTSC's request, in order to keep silent the fact that these large comapanies have paid so little.

Now this is where PTSC's and Cliff's acquiensence to perpetuating the argument that the market's perpsective on patetnt licensers is what's driving these low fees is mostly bunk! Whether he's perpetuating it intentionally to keep pressure off of him and to distract shareholders, or whether it's something he's come to believe is hard to say. Neither speaks well about Cliff, IMO.

The reason I say this is this. As many know, Apple paid a significant license fee to license the patents that TPL markets. While less than we'd hope Apple would have paid, it was on par with the fees many other large companies have paid PRIOR to the J3 settlement. The problem was that because TPL mixed the MMP licensing with its other portfolios, the percentage allocation to the MMP of the total fee was significantly depressed! This isn't because of the "marketplace and its view of patent licensers" it was STRICTLY because of TPL's/Leckrone's greed, and his willingness and ability to take advantage of our weak leadership, the deals they cut, and their poor stewardship and oversight of those deals. OUR OWN LICENSING AGENT, and OUR BOD are the primary ones that has depressed the value of the MMP licenses, NOT the marketplace as Cliff would have us believe.

I believe, for very good reasons, that Apple paid an aggregate fee in the $16M to $20M range for the license it purchased. If you look back on the pre-J3 settlement licenses, this is on par with many of the larger licenses of that time. It is CERTAINLY, a very large fee when put in the context of the POST-J3 settlement time frame as that would make it by far the largest during that time frame.

HOWEVER, in addition to the MMP, Apple received licenses to the other portfolios that TPL sells. This allowed TPL to "assign" a percentage value of the total fee to each of the licenses included. It is Chuck Moore's contention, as well as PTSC's (and actually even TPL's at times) that the MMP is BY FAR AND AWAY the most valueable portfolio in TPL's package. This is by orders of magnitude in some cases, not by small amounts! However, because TPL's shenanigans, the "worth" of the MMP license was dramatically BUT ARTIFICIALLY altered to the downside!

Obviously, when these tactics were revealed in HTC's (I believe it was theirs) court filing in 2010, our BOD had to take action to cover their backsides. They waited until it was revealed in a public court filing to take action, even though as we know from depositions later revealed, this was an issue of contention with TPL from back in the 2008 time frame. Hence, we sued TPL, thus throwing the whole MMP licensing process into chaos where the 2 partners who were suing infringers were now suing each other. Naturally, infringers were popping popcorn, and sitting back watching the show.

Based on what we know about TPL's portfolios (despite DBCoopers babbling ramblings about how respectable Leckrone is, there's a lot of knowledge to be gained by reading court filings and seeing what these portfolios are worth and how Leckrone manipulates his own clients to his benefit), the MMP is worth double to triple what any of the other portfolios represent. So of a possible Apple $20M aggregate fee, the MMP SHOULD have taken in anywhere from $10M to $15M of that fee. CLEARLY, even with the lawsuits, the MMP portion of the Apple fee never even approached either of those levels as revealed by the SEC filings.

HOWEVER, that's not to say Apple (the "martketplace" in Cliff's commentary) wasn't WILLING to pay it, because they IN FACT DID pay it. It's OUR agent that placed the small allocation to the MMP in favor of his other portfolios, and our BOD who settled for that in order to do what was in the "best interests of the licensing program", that reinforced it. While I certainly agree that it's better if we're not in litigation with our licensing partner when trying to pursue infringers, and thus it WAS a good idea to settle, the FACTS are that the ENTIRE episode should NEVER have occurred, as our BOD was warned of those very issues for years prior.

And we know from PR's that there are STILL companies that are licensing multiple portfolios including the MMP from TPL, so we know this COULD still be occuring, despite the assurances from PTSC that they have taken steps to control it. But the fact is that in settling the Apple matter, our BOD settled FOR LESS than the TRUE VALUE of the MMP. In doing so, they set a precendent that depressed the value of the MMP for future licenses. As is typical in ALL of their business dealings, whether it be with former employees, former business partners, Crossflo executives, TPL loans, etc. etc., our BOD and Management have ALWAYS paid MORE and settled for LESS, giving up what is really SHAREHOLDERS' money, so as to "resolve" the situation. The PDSG "sale" / Crossflo executives' settlement is just the latest in a long list of dealings that have shown this. In truth, I can't recall a deal that did NOT get settled in a fashion that was to our benefit.

Some of you will jump on this and complain it's yet another BOD bashing post. Others will complain that I'm broadcasting and highlighting these low fees, and that it does PTSC and thus shareholders NO GOOD to do so and that we should keep this mum so infringers and potential investors don't hear about it, etc. etc. etc.

Those views may even have some merit in the narrow view of this moment. But the point that they lose is that DESPITE all of the history, lessons, focus on it, etc. etc., the Cliff Flowers, Gloria Felcyns and Carlton Johnsons of the world continue to absolve themselves of their role in the fiascos and instead they continue to shift the blame and focus away from themselves, their mismanagement, and their consistent inability to negotiate POSITIVE outcomes that provide immediate AND longterm benefit to SHAREHOLDERS.

If Cliff REALLY believes that the "marketplace" rather than TPL's antics and PTSC's acquiecense, is the ROOT cause of the paltry fees, or that message boards are the reason for the low pps, or that it's acceptable for the CEO of a company to OWN NO SHARES of the company he leads because "it's too risky", then the void in leadership of PTSC is truly HUGE. He may be a nice guy, I don't know, I've never met him, and he's ceased responding to any e-mails I send long ago. However, it's not NICE for the CEO and BOD that are FIDUCIARILY RESPONSIBLE to us as shareholders to MAXIMIZE the value of PTSC but instead continue to take the EASY way out, justifying their moves with poor business sense, excusing their actions because it's TOO HARD to do better, and yet continuing to reward themselves disproportionately.

What's REALLY nice is that we as shareholders have allowed him and the others to remain in control of PTSC. There's a reason for the saying "nice guys finish last". In this case, we shareholders are the nice guys, and at 5-15 cents, we're seeing our 9th place ribbon daily. And we deserve it.

Let's hope Judge Ware can succeed where our BOD and CEO cannot, and provide a strong enough ruling that "the marketplace" will put aside its "view of patent licensers" like PTSC and give reason to get to the heart of the problem and really put aside its view of the leadership of our company and make it clear that the patents are VALUABLE, and that infringers won't be able to construe, play games, or take advantage of TPL and PTSC's inadequacies in order to circumvent PAYING for their infringement.