Bean, Ads,

I disagree with you that the BoD should wait until the conclusion of the Markman before issuing a PR and here is why:

In March, I posted a link that addressed multiple claims construction hearings on the same patents. By the way, this was another Judge Ware case. I had asked Ron if it was possible for us to see multiple Markman hearings for our patents. The link to Ron’s reply is below my link to that particular Markman.

Perhaps what is about to take place will not be considered a 2nd Markman but the point is, this obviously can continue on beyond the original Markman ruling. In light of that, I believe that PTSC owes its shareholders some kind of explanation about this very public ruling. I don’t give a crap what Leckrone thinks about it, Patriot is not his company to run and it’s about time our BoD grew a brass set and really did what was best for shareholders and not in the best interest of Leckrone.

If anyone here still believes that garbage about the reason certain MMP licenses are not announced is because the licensees do not wish to have their names mentioned, consider this: Why in hell would Apple care if their name was mentioned in a PR considering they got the MMP license for peanuts…..seems to be bragging rights for Apple. My guess is TPL kept it, and possibly others, under wraps for very very selfish reasons.

Just my opinon and everyone has one.

http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/Markman/pdfFiles/2007.03.02_ACACIA_MEDIA_TECHNOLOGIES_CORP_v._NEW_DESTINY_INTERNET_GRO.pdf

http://agoracom.com/ir/patriot/forums/discussion/topics/525105-ron-with-a-positive-markman-ruling-can-this-still-drag-on/messages/1662640#message