Please read my notes below, taken from Carlton Johnson’s declaration as it appears in the court records. PTSC vs TPL

Read it very very carefully and gain some insight into Carlton Johnson’s concerns about Dan Leckrone, PTSC’s business partner. Johnson was concerned about reimbursements for payments that were never made, he had questions for which there were never satisfactory answers and the big one here…..Leckrone’s estimation of the value of the MMP patent portfolio.

Consider the following:

400 infringers (give or take a few)as stated in previous PRs and other sources

one billion dollars in value-(I will assume this is remaining value)

trumped up expenses and real expenses (like what Leckrone promised Moore, Brown and Nielsen)-

expiring patents

unknown future litigation costs-it is my understanding that attorneys can pay “kick backs” (for lack of a proper legal term) to other attorneys which may be another way in which Leckrone gets paid)

Regardless of the final outcome of the Markman, can anyone show me where the incentive is for TPL/Leckrone to license the MMP? More importantly, if he fails (again/still) to license the MMP according to the terms of the commercialization agreement, is Patriot’s BoD ready willing and able to sue him again? If Moore’s case faces delays and the cloud of “ownership” hangs over 50% of the MMP, will the new excuse of the day for lack of licensing activity then be…..licensees prefer to wait to see what happens regarding ownership?

Obviously the real money for Leckrone lies in the expenses he submits for which the only other person on the PDS board who approves all expenses is none other than Carlton Johnson, PTSC’s director, who in a sworn declaration, said he cannot get satisfactory answers from Leckrone, PTSC’s business partner. Leckrone appears to be uncontrollable and Johnson is a__(readers choice)_________________.

9. On or about December 17, 2008, I observed that PDS had approved payments to TPL to “reimburse” TPL for payments that (according to Mr. Leckrone) had been made to outside counsel handling the patent infringement litigation at that time, Townsend, Townsend & Crew (“Townsend”). I discovered later that Mr. Leckrone had not paid the Townsend firm the $500,000 as represented and called him on it. Mr. Leckrone eventually paid Townsend the $500,00 that had been wired to the TPL account approximately two months earlier.

In late 2008, I learned of negotiations underway between TPL and a third party leading to settlement of one of the patent infringement litigation matters. In that case the MMP portfolio was the primary focus of the litigation, but that defendant had also sued TPL for declaratory relief that it was not infringing on TPL’s core Flash patent portfolio, in which Patriot has no involvement. The case settled by negotiated terms of MMP and Core Flash patent licenses to the third party. During the course of that negotiation, I observed first hand that the numbers changed such that the settlement consideration paid by that defendant became more heavily weighted in favor of the Core Flash portfolio and away from the MMP component. I asked questions about this of Mr. Leckrone and never received satisfactory answers.

11. Mr. Leckrone has made a number of representations of the “value” of the MMP portfolio. In general his position is that the MMP is worth $1,000,000,000 (One Billon U.S. Dollars).

12. I am particularly concerned by two licenses written by TPL in the first quarter of 2010 that appear substantially low in relation to the gross sales reported by those companies. The amounts of the licenses appear to be below the licensing criteria that we have agreed to with TPL under the Business Plan of the ComAg.