Contrary to what some may think about Chuck Moore, at this point, it is my belief that he is no longer motivated by money or another so called sweet deal with Leckrone because Leckrone has out maneuvered, out smarted and allegedly (and according to complaints) cheated several people with whom he has had a contract out of money owed to them ( to include Robert Nielson, Chet Brown, Phil Marcoux and of course PTSC).

Leckrone has so many other portolios that he can license without sharing his revenues with anyone. What incentive is there for Leckrone to license the MMP when he has to give away most of it. Just look at the licensing activity from the PTSC settlement date through today. Then look at the licensing activity for his other portfolios. It appears to me that he only licenses the MMP when he needs some additional expense money because that is where he really benefits the most from an MMP license.

Now if you argue that waiting on the final outcome of the Markman ruling has prevented a major licensing effort, then I would ask you to look at the licensing effort that was made prior to the last Markman ruling in Texas. I'm not buying that argument.

PTSC should demand a third director of PDS as required by the Master Agreement/ComAg. Why are Carl and Dan the only directors sitting on the BoD for PDS when three are required? I believe that Carl is ineffective against the demands of Leckrone and a third and totally independent person might make a huge difference in how things happen in the future (assuming a future)

Whether you share this opinion or not, it is something to think about.