Thank you for your translation of a PTSC reply posted on a German message board. Although I respect your position and those of like mind who believe there is merit in the BoD's response as to why they will not issue a PR, this is where we part company.

Q: What is the future direction of Patriot? Are additional M&A transactions planned? Is returning cash to the shareholders an option?

A: Patriot is not currently pursuing any acquisition opportunities. It has, and continues to, divest of interests in activities that have required continued uses of cash. While we believe Patriot currently has a relatively strong cash position, we continue to take measures to preserve resources so that we are as prepared as possible to support our interests in the MMP Portfolio and meet all challenges, both known and unforeseen. At this time a very important event in determining Patriot’s future will be the outcome in the current Northern California infringement litigation. A significant step in that process was the January 27, 2012 Markman hearing where claims construction arguments were presented to the court. Patriot is supportive of a strategy to return cash to its shareholders however, no action in this regard is expected to be undertaken until significant uncertainties surrounding the business, litigation, and the licensing program are resolved. We, like our shareholders, anxiously await the court’s ruling from the Markman hearing.

http://patriotscientific.com/ptsc-faqs.pdf

Here is the court's ruling that our BoD was anxiously awaiting.

FIRST CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

http://photos.imageevent.com/banos/t3/First%20Claim%20Const%20Order%206%2012%2012.pdf

Your translation from a German poster regarding the BoD’s position on a public statement about the ruling.

"On the recommendation of their lawyers the company refrains from publishing a PR in order to prevent delivering informations to the other side which could be used against PTSC."

And from a press release dated June 18, 2007, shortly after the Markman Ruling in Texas

According to Dan Leckrone, Chairman of The TPL Group, "The Texas Court ruling reflects well the skill of the Texas Court in dissecting and dealing with a very complex case over the past 15 months." He noted that while the ruling overwhelmingly confirms MMP Portfolio claims against Matsushita, Panasonic, JVC, Toshiba, and NEC entities, there remains a specific, highly-technical phrase that will require further scrutiny.

http://www.tplgroup.net:8080/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=70:texas-court-ruling-confirms-strength-of-moore-microprocessor-patent-portfolio&catid=36:legislation&Itemid=54

In my opinion, Patriot may very well be derelict in their duty to inform shareholders of significant events such as the announcement of a Markman Ruling regardless of whether or not there remains a specific claim that will require further scrutiny.Does anyone here really believe that publishing a PR will have the same effect as delivering information to the “other side” which could be used against PTSC? If so, why didn’t PTSC and TPL refrain from making a public announcement on a partial ruling in June 2007?

(all emphasis by me)